Romance and the Ego

Talk about relationships in the context of Spiritual Enlightenment

Romance and the Ego

Postby Enlightened2B » Tue Jul 23, 2013 4:19 am

The thread that Spectrum started got me thinking about this a bit because I am dating someone new now myself. Here's what I've come to conclude.

I just started my first "real" dating experience since my shift in perspective which happened in very late May. I am very attracted towards this woman physically. I enjoy her personality. We don't have much in common as far as interests which is fine by me. We have very different ethnic backgrounds and very different spiritual practices. However, I enjoy her company and that's ALL I am thinking about right now. I can care less about the future.

With that said, I noticed that I started to feel a VERY strong desire for her as I was very much attracted to her playful personality along with her physical appearance. I noticed this and I started to question if these were merely egoic wants/needs or something else. Because if I allowed it to continue as is without inquiring within, the desire and wants would have COMPLETELY taken over. It's an automatic instinct to notice these feelings. So, I inquired within on where they were stemming from. I came to the conclusion that it couldn't possibly be anything other than ego. I feel complete without having any one in my life romantically speaking. Therefore, what can possibly desire and want a perceived "other"? It couldn't possibly be "me".Therefore, I knew right then and there that this was clearly ego that was "needing, wanting and desiring". With that said, I have no intention to stop seeing her. I realize what's at play here and it's nothing more than ego. I just can't take this situation that seriously and allow attachment to take place.

I find it rather contradictory to be in a 'romantic' situation and be present at the same time. I just feel that it is almost impossible to be in a "serious" relationship with another and also understand that you ARE the present moment in which everything takes place. Here's why. Romance is not real. It's a creation of the mind/ego. There's ALWAYS a wanting, needing, desiring in "romance". That's what makes romance, romance. When we become "infatuated" with another, it's almost ALWAYS based off memories/beliefs and ideas that we have in our mind of the person that fits our description. What does "our description" mean? It means exactly that..... a collection of thoughts, beliefs, memories and ideas that our mind has collected over the years to create a perceived "ideal mate" which in reality doesn't exist outside of our minds. That's why everyone has different "tastes" in others. Some might say this is part of our unique personality. However, I feel it's part of ego.

So, if we put the sex aside for a second, why do enlightened people still feel the need to be romantically involved with another? Note the word 'romantically". Why not just throw the monogamy away and enjoy the sex? I know ET and Adyashanti are both married. However, both of their spouses are more than likely spiritually enlightened themselves. Therefore, it's safe to say that neither partner in the relationship take their personal situations too seriously which I can almost guarantee. They more than likely understand what their relationship is as a temporary state in form. However, this is not the case for most people. When we ourselves who have realized who and what we truly are start to get involved with others who are still believing themselves to BE separate and BE their minds/ego, WE can't possibly take the relationship to be as serious as we would have prior to our shift in perspective while the person we are involved with IS taking the situation incredibly to heart believing that they and you are attached at the hip in this fictitious notion of "romance". We on the other hand know that neither of us really exist as separate entities.

I see so many people struggling with the pull to "find someone" such as what Spectrum is feeling in the other thread himself and I feel this is such unnecessary suffering if we all can acknowledge that we are fully complete withOUT the need of finding a "long term" mate. If you choose to date, then date. However, I don't feel it's possible to get "serious" with anyone on a romantic level unless both people are literally on the same page spiritually speaking. Then it becomes merely a "play in form".

Would love to hear other's takes on this as I feel it's an interesting subject matter.
Enlightened2B
 
Posts: 1885
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Romance and the Ego

Postby merlin41 » Tue Jul 23, 2013 9:14 am

Enlightened2B wrote: Would love to hear other's takes on this as I feel it's an interesting subject matter.


Yes romance is an interesting subject and my take is, firstly imo it’s mainly a humanised version of animal mating/procreation and sex is the underlying drive. The other desires we have for a partner/mate are loneliness and a multitude of other egoic needs I feel.

Most of my life I have had relationships with women based on procreation and these other egoic needs, and have performed my biological directive and had children.

The awakening stage in my life came late for me, with the recent changes I have experienced partly through ageing and experience, which enabled me to drop some needs, especially sexual ones as my libido has virtually disappeared over the past decade.

The more recent ET effect and the Sherman “Looking” seem to have allowed me to shed all my other egoic needs and I feel complete now within myself, and feel a relationship is no longer necessary for me to enjoy life and be at peace.

WE can't possibly take the relationship to be as serious as we would have prior to our shift in perspective while the person we are involved with IS taking the situation incredibly to heart believing that they and you are attached at the hip in this fictitious notion of "romance". We on the other hand know that neither of us really exist as separate entities.


I had been in a 10 year relationship which was built on mutual needs being met, with all the usual insecurities and frictions that go with these so called “romantic” relationships.

When the recent changes mentioned above took place, the relationship broke down and I felt a sense of relief that I could now continue a need free life, and interestingly didn’t suffer much emotionally as a result of the breakdown.

However my ex started to email me again after a short rebound affair and we got back together as a result. I explained to her my current truth and clearly stated that I had no or at least far fewer needs now and could she handle this.

The current situation is that we are playing with the form but not taking it too seriously, I say we but I can only speak for myself as I feel she is not in the same state of mind as me. In saying that she does take on board some of the ET stuff, and I am reading “A New Earth” to her in bed as a nightcap, :) (words of wisdom as she calls it). How it will ultimately turn out I have no idea, but as long as we communicate in truth I notice there is no friction between us and it is fun and light.

I will add that I am not sure I could have created this situation when I was younger with all the hormones coursing through my body, and the strong pull to have sex and mate. Life is so much easier without a powerful sex drive, which I feel can be a huge obstacle for young men especially, (and probably women as well) to let go of, if indeed we should?
“I would like my life to be a statement of love and compassion--and where it isn't, that's where my work lies.”
― Ram Dass
User avatar
merlin41
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:33 am
Location: Worcester UK

Re: Romance and the Ego

Postby Enlightened2B » Tue Jul 23, 2013 6:34 pm

merlin41 wrote:The current situation is that we are playing with the form but not taking it too seriously, I say we but I can only speak for myself as I feel she is not in the same state of mind as me. In saying that she does take on board some of the ET stuff, and I am reading “A New Earth” to her in bed as a nightcap, :) (words of wisdom as she calls it). How it will ultimately turn out I have no idea, but as long as we communicate in truth I notice there is no friction between us and it is fun and light.

I will add that I am not sure I could have created this situation when I was younger with all the hormones coursing through my body, and the strong pull to have sex and mate. Life is so much easier without a powerful sex drive, which I feel can be a huge obstacle for young men especially, (and probably women as well) to let go of, if indeed we should?


That's really beautiful Merlin that you are reading this to her in bed. I find that incredibly touching as perhaps a true bond between two people. No I do not believe we should let go of our sex drive. Otherwise, we would be suppressing an emotion. I completely agree that sex drive definitely is powerful. I am a young man with a strong sex drive. However, at the same time, I realize what my sex drive is. It's merely an occurrence within the physical body which is not part of myself. Just like pain is not ME. My sex drive is not ME. Therefore, I no longer feel a need to anguish over whether or not it gets filled. I'm not going to ignore it. I can easily have fun and fill that craving if I choose. However, if I can't get it filled, I accept the situation as is.

You make some great points. Ultimately, I do think there's a bit more than just sex that drives us humans towards the opposite sex (or same sex). Like you said, there is an inherent loneliness that the ego feels and desires to get filled. That's why I personally feel if we put sex aside for a second, what's left of the concept of "romance" and finding a partner is merely egoic wants and needs. There's literally nothing else to a relationship. Even the idea of filling a spot of "loneliness" is an egoic desire. There's no right or wrong once you acknowledge it. If we fully transcended ego in these situations, we'd have no pull for any kind of 'romance'.

In my own situation, I want to see this woman again. However, it's clearly ego that wants this. There is nothing possibly out there that could desire another human being's attention, body, etc other than ego. I think once you realize this, it's easier to play around in form. Yet, at the same time, is this person on the same page as you in understanding what a relationship really is? It's a rhetorical question, but I think there's an ethical issue with that too unless again we know that person understands that the relationship itself is merely a temporary play in form in the same context that you yourself are taking it to be. But, how would they know this if they weren't on a spiritual path of their own?
Enlightened2B
 
Posts: 1885
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Romance and the Ego

Postby TemporalDissonance » Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:15 pm

Bare with me with this little history. Focus on the "story". :wink:

The contemporary western cultural definition of "romance" has its roots in the Victorian era. Prior to that, "romance" and courtship was fairly non-existent if any. Historically, women were often treated as property. Movies and books are in a constant quest to revise the depiction of historical relationships to include "romances","Cleopatra" comes to mind. Monogamy is culturally defined as well, with many cultures around the world practicing polygamy and polygny. It is only until recent times, under western cultural influences that "romance" and monogamy came to be what we understand today. In a sense, the definition of "romance" and intimate relationships even, is up for grabs.

With that said, as Enlightened2B pointed out, the pull to "find someone" or "the soulmate" or "the one" are within many people and can lead to unnecessarily suffering. We grew up buying into this idea, this ideal of "romance", this story. With the shifts in perspectives/awakening/or any-other-name-you-like-to-call-it, many of the stories we grew up with shows themselves to be what they really are. Stories. "Romance" being one of them.

Enlightened2B wrote:When we ourselves who have realized who and what we truly are start to get involved with others who are still believing themselves to BE separate and BE their minds/ego, WE can't possibly take the relationship to be as serious as we would have prior to our shift in perspective while the person we are involved with IS taking the situation incredibly to heart believing that they and you are attached at the hip in this fictitious notion of "romance". We on the other hand know that neither of us really exist as separate entities.


When we say "we on the other hand know that neither of us really exist as separate entities.", aren't we in fact creating a duality - those who "know" and those who "don't know"?

I recall Adyashanti mentioned in one of his books (perhaps "The End of the World") that while shifts in perspectives/awakening/etc and being the witness, the Self can be exceptionally satisfying and blissful, there can be a trap that we get stuck there. He compares it to going up the mountain summit and staying there, but eventually we have to come back down. This reminds me of the Zen saying, "Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water." We may experience and come to know who we really are, but we cannot deny our humanness.

Enlightened2B wrote:However, I don't feel it's possible to get "serious" with anyone on a romantic level unless both people are literally on the same page spiritually speaking. Then it becomes merely a "play in form".


The question then comes right back to "what is romance?" What is a "serious" romantic relationship for you? Your mention of "play of form" really sheds light on what ET really means when he says that there is a delight in the "play for form". I understand your reference to "play of form" is a negatory one. However, is it a negative or positive thing?

When we see the Self, and know that everything and everyone as the Self, is there no perfection?

Enlightened2B wrote:In my own situation, I want to see this woman again. However, it's clearly ego that wants this. There is nothing possibly out there that could desire another human being's attention, body, etc other than ego. I think once you realize this, it's easier to play around in form. Yet, at the same time, is this person on the same page as you in understanding what a relationship really is? It's a rhetorical question, but I think there's an ethical issue with that too unless again we know that person understands that the relationship itself is merely a temporary play in form in the same context that you yourself are taking it to be. But, how would they know this if they weren't on a spiritual path of their own?


Where are these questions really coming from? Your doubt, perhaps even fear, about this relationship, where are they coming from?
User avatar
TemporalDissonance
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 3:41 am

Re: Romance and the Ego

Postby Enlightened2B » Tue Jul 23, 2013 8:13 pm

TemporalDissonance wrote:I recall Adyashanti mentioned in one of his books (perhaps "The End of the World") that while shifts in perspectives/awakening/etc and being the witness, the Self can be exceptionally satisfying and blissful, there can be a trap that we get stuck there. He compares it to going up the mountain summit and staying there, but eventually we have to come back down. This reminds me of the Zen saying, "Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water." We may experience and come to know who we really are, but we cannot deny our humanness.


The question then comes right back to "what is romance?" What is a "serious" romantic relationship for you? Your mention of "play of form" really sheds light on what ET really means when he says that there is a delight in the "play for form". I understand your reference to "play of form" is a negatory one. However, is it a negative or positive thing?

When we see the Self, and know that everything and everyone as the Self, is there no perfection?



Thanks TD for the response. That Adyashanti quote really speaks volumes. He's put out some incredible stuff on relationships including one that Andy posted a while back which is absolutely life changing if you can comprehend it. I agree. I think that once your perspective starts to shift, it's very easy to observe life in general. However, when it comes to pursuing "romantic" relationships again, it's very difficult because you see the relationship for what it is and then start to question "Is this real?". At least, that's my experience.

Honestly, at this point, I have no idea what a romantic relationship is ha. I can honestly say that. From my previous perspectives when I was still associated with separateness and my mind, I believed a romantic relationship was give and take and that both parties "owed" each other something in exchange. This is why I suffered so greatly for so long. However, my current definition does not exist because I think romance is not real. I can't help but feel this. I'm finding it very difficult to have ANY motivation to pursue a relationship knowing fully well that ego is pulling the strings. I can date casually with no invested interest other than to enjoy the time spent with another human being. However, once you start getting "involved" with another, everything starts to change and ego starts to take over.

"Play in form" for me what was not meant in a negative context. It was meant exactly what it sounds like. Once we know what and who we are. Once we know what the relationship we think we are encountering really is, we can just have fun with it as LONG as it doesn't reach of level of "co-depending" which is EXACTLY what most people view relationships as. I'd say 95 percent of the population view relationships as that. Therefore, play in form is merely enjoying the company of another without allowing a relationship to reach "serious" levels where both parties are "invested fully" into one another. Investing fully means "association" WITH that other person. It means "a sense of entitlement". It means creating duality. I really can't give a definition of "romance" here because since my shift in perspective on everything, I seem to interact with life wonderfully, consciously without attachment. However, the idea of "romance" IS one of attachment. Therefore, I don't see how it fits in. Because romance in my mind is "ego". Allowing ego to take over while being present is literally impossible. Seeing ego for what it is means essentially seeing "romance" for what it is. Therefore, what's left to pursue in a relationship after we see it for what it is?

Ego creates duality. Romance creates duality. Duality is an illusion. Separateness is an illusion. Therefore, romance is an illusion.
Enlightened2B
 
Posts: 1885
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Romance and the Ego

Postby Enlightened2B » Tue Jul 23, 2013 8:36 pm

TemporalDissonance wrote:
Where are these questions really coming from? Your doubt, perhaps even fear, about this relationship, where are they coming from?


Definitely doubt and uncertainty about this relationship and relationships based on romance in general. Let's put it this way. If I as a separate person and mind pursue romance with someone as another separate person or mind, everything feels perfect at this stage and there are LITERALLY, no questions. However, SEEING the relationship for what it is as Awareness and only as Awareness as seeing that "me and her" do not exist separately from the projection of myself, I find it difficult to understand why I am going through this process of seeing this woman other than what ego is pulling at. There is no fear here because what IS there to fear? The only thing there is to fear here is getting "serious" with someone when I can't see how that could possibly happen because I myself can't even grasp the definition of "serious".

Here's a better way to sum it up. I am her and she is me. There is only one, yet I am trying to make sense of these feelings I have inside and I KNOW they can only be from ego. Ego is the ONLY thing that views as "separation".
Enlightened2B
 
Posts: 1885
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Romance and the Ego

Postby TemporalDissonance » Tue Jul 23, 2013 10:19 pm

Enlightened2B wrote:However, when it comes to pursuing "romantic" relationships again, it's very difficult because you see the relationship for what it is and then start to question "Is this real?"....Honestly, at this point, I have no idea what a romantic relationship is ha....However, my current definition does not exist because I think romance is not real. I can't help but feel this. I'm finding it very difficult to have ANY motivation to pursue a relationship knowing fully well that ego is pulling the strings. I can date casually with no invested interest other than to enjoy the time spent with another human being. However, once you start getting "involved" with another, everything starts to change and ego starts to take over.


From the Absolute, romantic relationships can be seen as "not real". From the Relative, romantic relationships are "real". Does it have to be either "real" or "not real"? Naming anything as "real" or "not real" still suggest some form of duality. Your situation reminds me of the quote, "The world is not real. Brahman is real. Brahman is the world." Adya cautions those of us who have had an awakening/realization to not get stuck in the second sentence similar to the summit idea I mentioned earlier. I am not suggesting you are stuck but in due time you may realize the last sentence more/differently and approach romantic relationships with renewed wonder.

That perhaps is what is all needed. To approach new relationships with awareness. You mentioned you are already doing that. Ego itself is. It is not an enemy or "bad". To continue approaching the ego as such only leads to division and perhaps new suffering.

Enlightened2B wrote:...what's left to pursue in a relationship after we see it for what it is? Ego creates duality. Romance creates duality. Duality is an illusion. Separateness is an illusion. Therefore, romance is an illusion.


Perhaps instead of pursuing a relationship for "romance", pursue it for love? Pursue it to share your love without attachment? Pursue relationships to share your love without limits, labels, expectations, ifs and/or buts. Pursue it for the joy of sharing and loving.

Yes, while many may view "romance" as the egoic play you have come to understand, it doesn't negate you from pursuing a relationship altogether different from "romance" if you choose to.

Enlightened2B wrote:I find it difficult to understand why I am going through this process of seeing this woman other than what ego is pulling at.....Here's a better way to sum it up. I am her and she is me. There is only one, yet I am trying to make sense of these feelings I have inside and I KNOW they can only be from ego. Ego is the ONLY thing that views as "separation".


Am I correct in understanding that these feelings which you see as coming only from ego, is somehow... unworthy, wrong, not right, separate (therefore lesser)?
User avatar
TemporalDissonance
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 3:41 am

Re: Romance and the Ego

Postby Enlightened2B » Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:25 pm

TD, thanks for the response again. I think it's important to understand that 'romance' is not real in the sense that it's merely a concept of the mind. I do think it's important to recognize it as such. Otherwise, one might become identified with it like so many do. See the "idea of romance" for what it is and simply allow it to be there and the same with ego.

Like you said, maybe I'm stuck in that phase that Adyashanti refers to. But, in my experience over the last couple of months.... I meet someone, I go on a date with no expectations and it's merely an opportunity for me to interact with other beings. The divine perceiving through my human body with the divine (essentially the same divine) perceiving through her human body and it's such a wonderful process when you can approach life this way with no wanting, no expectations, no need, no conditions, just a one on one with another human being experiencing life through the same source that you are. That in itself is love to me because I recognize what is in her is the EXACT same as what is in ME. I find it incredibly beautiful to live this way. This in itself is interacting in human form. This is unconditional love in its ultimate form...... again, no attachments, no identification with the perceived other.

It's when physical attraction, chemistry happen, flirtation happens where we start to get distracted from what we actually are and start to develop infatuation with this "perceived" other who really is nothing more than US from a different perspective. THAT is where ego comes into play. No, it's not bad once we recognize it. But, once we DO recognize it, which has happened in my case, what happens from there? That's the question. I feel that this kind of wanting, needing, infatuation ultimately leads to suffering almost ALWAYS from my past experiences in previous relationships prior to my shift in perspective. Therefore, I can either just go with and allow it be as such. But, I think that's very difficult to do because....what exactly am I going along WITH? Is this whole experience of "dating/relationship" merely a concept? Once you see everything for what it is, which I have, it's very difficult to allow anything to become attached to you.

Here's an example. A year ago, I purchased a new guitar. It was everything to me. I had saved up SO much for this beautiful, blue piece of wonder which others call a Les Paul. Well, if anything had happened to that guitar, I would have gone ape-shit, literally. I was so incredibly attached to this guitar because it was the "one" I had saved up for so long for. I even named it. Well, now that guitar sits in its gig bag and honestly, as weird as it sounds, while I still play and admire it's beauty, I can care less if it broke or disappeared. I'm relating this to anything in life that represents "attachment".
Enlightened2B
 
Posts: 1885
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Romance and the Ego

Postby Enlightened2B » Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:46 pm

Here's another example. I have some really close friends and family members. Would I be very saddened if my family members passed? Yes. However, I don't think there would be intense grieving because I realize now that none of us really existed in the way we think we did, in the first place. I no longer have expectations from friends or family. If someone "backstabbed" me or did something to hurt me, I wouldn't care anymore, because I no longer expect things from those people. I enjoy their company, but their relationships with me are ultimately impermanent and temporary just like everything else.

Therefore, when it comes to monogamy, there is a natural nature to it as we see with other animals that are also monogamous. However, what happens if one of those animals cheats on their "partner", does the animal's ego get in the way? It's different with humans. When we talk about monogamy, we are talking about expectations in order to fill needs, wants and desires. If those are not met, then what are we left with? There's really no relationship. ALL modern day romantic, monogamous relationships are based on expectations to some degree. That's why it's almost impossible to not feel hurt when your partner does you 'wrong". We are drawn to people in the first place because of the mental construct created about that person. Our minds convince us that "this person" is 'right" for us and as a result, we start to develop expectations for how things "should" be. Can we seriously be involved in a "serious monogamous relationship with no expectations, wants, needs or desires? We'd essentially be sex buddies :D Some people think this is natural to allow ourselves to feel heartbroken when someone hurts us . I feel this is NOT natural because we allowed ourselves in the first place to become so incredibly attached to another in the world of form.
Enlightened2B
 
Posts: 1885
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Romance and the Ego

Postby TemporalDissonance » Wed Jul 24, 2013 1:39 am

Enlightened2B wrote:ALL modern day romantic, monogamous relationships are based on expectations to some degree. That's why it's almost impossible to not feel hurt when your partner does you 'wrong". We are drawn to people in the first place because of the mental construct created about that person. Our minds convince us that "this person" is 'right" for us and as a result, we start to develop expectations for how things "should" be. Can we seriously be involved in a "serious monogamous relationship with no expectations, wants, needs or desires? We'd essentially be sex buddies :D Some people think this is natural to allow ourselves to feel heartbroken when someone hurts us . I feel this is NOT natural because we allowed ourselves in the first place to become so incredibly attached to another in the world of form.


At the core, a monogamous relationship by definition requires both parties to be faithful. It is a construct. An agreement between two people. Whether one is spiritual or not, there is the understanding that both parties are not sleeping/romantically linked with others outside the relationship. There is an expectation of monogamy. Yes it is an "illusion". But does one approach such a relationship arrangement without agreeing to such an expectation willingly in the first place?

Perhaps the question is can we approach a monogamous relationship from a position of lesser expectations, wants, needs or desires? Because if we are so detached from such a relationship arrangement in the first place, would we allow ourselves to get into one?

I think there can be approaches that are more aware than perhaps how many of us behave in such a relationship. Would you cheat on your partner if you are aware? Knowing your action could lead to your partner's suffering? Would you stay in such an arrangement if it leads to your partner's or your suffering? What happens if your partner cheat on you? Would you suffer because such an event occur?

While we can become detach from the everyday from the position of the Absolute, would the Absolute do things that would cause more suffering? Regardless of the relationship, sex buddies to monogamy, ultimately, perhaps we would have to "want" to be in a monogamous relationship to be in one, knowing full well the "rules of the game" we are playing in. "Want" not from that of the Ego but that of choice, Freedom and Spirit.

To enjoy the joys of being in such a relationship instead of NEEDING to be in such a relationship. Similar to your relationship to your guitar. You enjoy the beauty of the guitar, and relish in the joy of playing it. But are you identified by it? With it?
User avatar
TemporalDissonance
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 3:41 am

Re: Romance and the Ego

Postby Enlightened2B » Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:12 am

At the core, a monogamous relationship by definition requires both parties to be faithful. It is a construct. An agreement between two people. Whether one is spiritual or not, there is the understanding that both parties are not sleeping/romantically linked with others outside the relationship. There is an expectation of monogamy. Yes it is an "illusion". But does one approach such a relationship arrangement without agreeing to such an expectation willingly in the first place?


I agree completely. There has to be an agreement if two people choose to be monogamous. This is why I feel it's conditional. I will only love you if you vow not to cheat.. I totally understand the agreement, but I feel relationships based on "conditions" are not real. Regardless, you are committing to an "agreement". Therefore, you vow to be faithful and you EXPECT them to be as well since this is part of the agreement. If the agreement is broken, then one party is of course heartbroken.

Perhaps the question is can we approach a monogamous relationship from a position of lesser expectations, wants, needs or desires? Because if we are so detached from such a relationship arrangement in the first place, would we allow ourselves to get into one?


There will always be expectations in my mind and wants and needs. When I started dating this person currently. We spent almost 5 hours on each of the first two dates. Then spoke on the phone for about 45 minutes two days after the second date. She informed at the time that she was going to call me during the week to schedule plans for a third date. She did call me, but my point is that I had expectations for her phone call by that point. If she had NOT called, I would have been dissapointed and probably felt let down to some degree. I'd love to hear of someone who would NOT have felt that way. Because, when you spend enough time with someone, you start to expect things in return. It's an automatic characteristic of the ego. It's just natural when you're dating someone in this world. I'm not saying it's bad, but it is what it is.

I think there can be approaches that are more aware than perhaps how many of us behave in such a relationship. Would you cheat on your partner if you are aware? Knowing your action could lead to your partner's suffering? Would you stay in such an arrangement if it leads to your partner's or your suffering? What happens if your partner cheat on you? Would you suffer because such an event occur?


No, I would not cheat if I agreed to be monogamous and would EXPECT the same in return....again expectations. Making agreements based on conditions. If my partner cheated on me after we both "committed" to this monogamous relationship, I would inevitably be heart broken. How could I not be when I had set myself up for this by agreeing to "commitments" and "conditions"?

While we can become detach from the everyday from the position of the Absolute, would the Absolute do things that would cause more suffering? Regardless of the relationship, sex buddies to monogamy, ultimately, perhaps we would have to "want" to be in a monogamous relationship to be in one, knowing full well the "rules of the game" we are playing in. "Want" not from that of the Ego but that of choice, Freedom and Spirit.


Totally agree. That's where rules come in. The wanting that is non-egoic is not the same in my opinion as the one stemming from ego. The "wanting" to be in a relationship from an non-egoic point is one like you said of freedom, choice, and spirit. It is essentially more of a "choice" than a "want". Egoic "wants" have consequences and expectations that automatically come along with it.

Ultimately, if I met the right person....whatever that means....I'd love to be in a monogamous relationship. You see, I can enjoy spending time with anyone. However, the relationship that is most well known is one that I don't believe can take place without expectations and conditions. Expectations inevitably are always based off of conditions and inevitably lead to suffering when something does not go your way. Nothing lasts forever as everything is impermanent. I would completely agree to enjoy life and date and just be. However, my point in all of this is that when you start getting more "involved" with one person, that detachment becomes harder and harder because you become more drawn in by that person. You inevitably DO become more attached to that person. How can you not be after essentially agreeing to be faithful and expecting the same in return? Is there an enlightened person that would not be affected by heartbreak in a relationship?
Enlightened2B
 
Posts: 1885
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Romance and the Ego

Postby TemporalDissonance » Wed Jul 24, 2013 7:06 am

Enlightened2B wrote:If my partner cheated on me after we both "committed" to this monogamous relationship, I would inevitably be heart broken. How could I not be when I had set myself up for this by agreeing to "commitments" and "conditions"?


Let's be clear, there is a huge difference between being a little disappointed and heart broken. Having awaken/felt presence doesn't negate anyone from feeling suffering or any negative emotions. However, the degree of suffering one perpetuate or experience usually lessens through awareness and acceptance. Yes, you may feel disappointed. But also understand that negative emotions as disappointment are not "bad" in themselves. And that disappointment has a lesser chance of becoming a full blown heartache through awareness. It is whether we get stuck with those emotions and thoughts.

Enlightened2B wrote:You inevitably DO become more attached to that person. How can you not be after essentially agreeing to be faithful and expecting the same in return?


Is this true though? What is that you are really attached? To not be a victim? To not feel cheated in such an agreement? Does this matter if one is fully in the now enjoying being with the person you care for? Expectation suggests a future. Something that will be either fulfilled or not fulfilled. It also suggest a past. Something that was fulfilled or not fulfilled.

This may sound cliché but if you really love someone, you would let them be free. This includes making mistakes even if that includes infidelity. What you choose to do with that particular relationship after is your choice. You are free to choose.

There's no space/air/freedom within an egoic relationship.

Enlightened2B wrote:Is there an enlightened person that would not be affected by heartbreak in a relationship?


The question perhaps is what degree of "heartbreak"? Slight disappointment and sadness within a moment versus a month locked up crying? This is all hypothetical. Wouldn't an enlightened person comes from a position of compassion and understanding? To truly understand why another would "cheat"? What's the motivation of such action? Such action would not only inflict suffering on the perpetuated, but the perpetuator.
User avatar
TemporalDissonance
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 3:41 am

Re: Romance and the Ego

Postby Enlightened2B » Wed Jul 24, 2013 7:37 pm

Is this true though? What is that you are really attached? To not be a victim? To not feel cheated in such an agreement? Does this matter if one is fully in the now enjoying being with the person you care for? Expectation suggests a future. Something that will be either fulfilled or not fulfilled. It also suggest a past. Something that was fulfilled or not fulfilled.


Attached to the other person that is. Attached to the "idea of partnership" between you and her or you and him ignoring the idea that you already ARE one. I understand where you're coming from. Regardless, I believe all romantic relationships modern day....even the ones that are considered "healthy", are based on SOME sort of needs/attachment. Otherwise, again, there IS no relationship nor any NEED for relationship. We'd all just enjoy each other's presence, enjoy the sex and have no need for this concept of "romance" which is an idea relating from ego based on conditions and needs being met. This is what romantic relationships are. It's not a bad thing or a good thing. I'm not labeling it. I'm simply stating that it just makes it that much more difficult to stay on a spiritual path. Sure, you can become LESS attached to some degree through presence, awareness (which you are). However, the entire "concept" of being "exclusive" means that THIS relationship is different than any other relationship that you might have with friends, family, neighbors, co-workers, etc. THIS relationship is exclusive because you are both making a verbal agreement that THIS is a 'romantic' relationship. This is not a "friendly" relationship. That's where the monogamous/exclusivity comes into play because of the idea of 'romance'. Once you claim those terms, expectations are immediately inherent.

You're exactly right. Expectations DO imply a future. I don't know a SINGLE couple (that sounded weird) where one of the partners is not expecting SOMETHING either from the other partner or from the relationship itself. It's simply inherent in the relationship because when you make an agreement, you of course expect things. Why make an agreement otherwise? Why be monogamous? I'm implying that is the opposite of presence and being aware. Yet, people do it anyway. You can go with the flow through the early stages. However, the relationship will ultimately pull you in and it will NOT work out unless needs/wants are met.

Compassion/empathy will always be there when you are present. If a partner cheats, there will be a level of compassion depending on how present you can be. However, the fact that you are IN this relationship in the first place in my opinion implies that some needs/wants needed to be met outside of what you already are. Therefore, when a partner cheats, it's once again inevitable to feel hurt....not necessarily anger at the other person, but hurt because the EGO is bruised.
Enlightened2B
 
Posts: 1885
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Romance and the Ego

Postby Enlightened2B » Wed Jul 24, 2013 8:04 pm

I should really add on to this that I'm only referring to those couples who are either both completely unawakened or ONE partner is unawakened. I believe that if two people are both on a spiritual path to "oneness" and understand everything involved in it, then that kind of relationship would be absolutely beautiful and that's the kind of relationship that Adya and ET have in my opinion.

However, that is INCREDIBLY rare and it's not easy attaining that nor meeting people who themselves are on a spiritual path. Therefore, we more often than not end up involved with people who are very much asleep and have no intention of waking up which makes spiritual compatibility very difficult because more likely than not, both partners have completely different ideas of what a relationship is. One partner is viewing the relationship is a mere temporary occurrence in form while the other partner is believing this to be everything they dreamed of and essentially creating false expectations based on needs/wants/conditions.
Enlightened2B
 
Posts: 1885
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Romance and the Ego

Postby tod » Wed Jul 24, 2013 11:18 pm

If you have expectations of another in a relationship are you awake, liberated?

Wouldn't being in a relationship bring to your own attention more examples of where you are attached to your own held thought patterns (eg, expectations)?

I know an apparently quite aware guy who has been with 2 partners (1st one died) who appear to be not too aware and it is evident that he 'uses these relationships', or 'extends the love' to further awaken. It is not so much that he is using or extending, it is just what can appear to be happening from the point of view of a particular observer. His partners have been, in turn, 'madly' in love with him.
tod
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:25 pm
Location: New Zealand

Next

Return to Relationships

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest