Romance and the Ego

Talk about relationships in the context of Spiritual Enlightenment

Re: Romance and the Ego

Postby Enlightened2B » Mon Jul 29, 2013 10:21 pm

Because sex is good! :D
Also, because my partner loves, honours and cherishes me the way I love honour and cherish myself. This is actually tricky, because if he doesn't, it means that I don't on some level either and he is showing me where I need to look more closely. I think we are mirrors to each other and we look for someone similar in some way to ourselves so that we can see ourselves more clearly.


Yes, sex is good heh. But, the reason I left it out is because people confuse it often with "love". It can be a "physical act" of love. So, aside from that I meant there has to be more to a monogamous relationship obviously. I agree that others mirror ourselves mainly because they ARE ourselves in a different body. I don't want to be dating a mirror image of myself. Granted, I agree there have to be similarities.

I still think there has to be more for myself personally in order to say "Jane is the woman I am monogamous with. Cindy is not". Monogamy is a VERY large commitment....huge. I still believe there is always some level of "needs being met" in a monogamous relationship. One can argue this all day, but what is....is.

Essentially, to love ourselves means to acknowledge our true selves. That's the first stage of true love. I believe that love blossoms from there because we start to see ourselves in everyone else. When I say "ourselves", I'm talking about our TRUE selves....not the personality/mind. That is unique for everyone. It's merely us viewing the world from different perspectives. I think that afterwards what is once perceived as a "personal experience" is no longer perceived as "personal" which is kind of liberating. It makes interacting with others more joyful I feel and the experience is richer.[/quote]
Enlightened2B
 
Posts: 1867
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Romance and the Ego

Postby Enlightened2B » Mon Jul 29, 2013 10:34 pm

Some of the 'from the outside' judging you are doing of others in their intimate relationships you are only privy to the external behaviours and expressions of them.


I don't believe that was a judgement. That was merely an observation based on people I interact with consistently and based on complaints from people ABOUT their spouses. If I had placed a label such as "These relationships are unhealthy" That would be a judgement.
Enlightened2B
 
Posts: 1867
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Romance and the Ego

Postby TemporalDissonance » Tue Jul 30, 2013 12:55 am

Enlightened2B wrote:
Because sex is good! :D
Also, because my partner loves, honours and cherishes me the way I love honour and cherish myself. This is actually tricky, because if he doesn't, it means that I don't on some level either and he is showing me where I need to look more closely. I think we are mirrors to each other and we look for someone similar in some way to ourselves so that we can see ourselves more clearly.


Yes, sex is good heh. But, the reason I left it out is because people confuse it often with "love". It can be a "physical act" of love. So, aside from that I meant there has to be more to a monogamous relationship obviously. I agree that others mirror ourselves mainly because they ARE ourselves in a different body. I don't want to be dating a mirror image of myself. Granted, I agree there have to be similarities.

I still think there has to be more for myself personally in order to say "Jane is the woman I am monogamous with. Cindy is not". Monogamy is a VERY large commitment....huge. I still believe there is always some level of "needs being met" in a monogamous relationship. One can argue this all day, but what is....is.

Essentially, to love ourselves means to acknowledge our true selves. That's the first stage of true love. I believe that love blossoms from there because we start to see ourselves in everyone else. When I say "ourselves", I'm talking about our TRUE selves....not the personality/mind. That is unique for everyone. It's merely us viewing the world from different perspectives. I think that afterwards what is once perceived as a "personal experience" is no longer perceived as "personal" which is kind of liberating. It makes interacting with others more joyful I feel and the experience is richer.


Ok....no sex. :)

"Needs being met" is a tricky one since its almost a scale, from the basic "did he pick up the kids" to "does she really love me unconditionally just the way I am with this beer belly"? On a day-to-day basis you can't get away from some form of "needs" if we define "needs" as expectations.

What is my monogamous relationship based on... why this person and not that person? It comes down to who that person really is (not from the Absolute, but Relative) underneath all the clothing, makeup, ego play, attachments. You just know or get to know when someone is kind hearted and nice, despite the "bad" days and such. Yes, there are obviously surprises some time. I think there is an element of exploration and letting go of how someone ought to be on the body/mind level. Perhaps, better put is when you allow someone to be him or herself just as they are, dirt and all, and share in delight in deploring all those dirt and all without expectations whether the dirt level goes up or not (obviously one may prefer less or more dirt to began with) then you may found someone to be in a monogamous relationship with and see where it goes.
User avatar
TemporalDissonance
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 3:41 am

Re: Romance and the Ego

Postby tod » Tue Jul 30, 2013 1:04 am

Good posts E2B.

Enlightened2B wrote:I still think there has to be more for myself personally in order to say "Jane is the woman I am monogamous with. Cindy is not". Monogamy is a VERY large commitment....huge. I still believe there is always some level of "needs being met" in a monogamous relationship. One can argue this all day, but what is....is.


Could it be that needs are being met by not being in a monogamous relationship? Could someone be in a monogamous relationship and not see this as defining them self? Could that be the relationship with oneself? IOW, isn't circumstance, no matter how binding, only a mental picture, or positioning, of our self? I mean, we could imagine that we are bound in lots of ways in this life, but this is only binding to an imagined particular self image is it not? Being bound to a particular self image is monogamy isn't it?
tod
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:25 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Romance and the Ego

Postby smiileyjen101 » Tue Jul 30, 2013 1:46 am

Firstly to the above - I 'assumed' you were saying these aspects of relationships you have viewed from the outside are unhealthy and in unawareness based on your putting 'normal' in inverted commas :wink:

I do still say however, one cannot know the length and breadth and depth of any other person's experience from the outside.
.................

With that said, what is YOUR monogamous relationship based on if it is indeed NOT based on give and take, needs being satisfied? Clearly, as Jen pointed out, we enjoy the company of this person, we can relate to them on some level and there is enthusiasm about seeing them.

But, what else is there that makes you say, THIS is the person I am in a monogamous relationship with as opposed to THIS person? Let's take sex COMPLETELY out of the equation for a second because often times we confuse this with "love". Why do you choose monogamy with THIS person as opposed to THIS person? I ask this question in a serious manner and would love to hear other's responses.

Recognising the length, breadth and depth of the connection to another person when it is not based on need or egoic fulfilment, or sex, comes down to a willingness to melt the barriers between us, and humanly - physically, materially we do this in an atmosphere of no fear and authenticity.

Where society and individuals over-pin their expectations upon one another, one feels the need or priority in acceptance to bend somewhat towards the 'socially acceptable', in some ways the sorts of behaviours and labelling etc that you mentioned earlier. The ways one introduces - relationally - another in terms of social acceptance and describing the relationship so as to inform the person being introduced as to the length-breadth-depth of the connection, within social constructs.

When two connect and their connection melts the socially constructed barriers between them the intimacy - the sharing of self/s brings us deeper into who we really are - love. As Neale Donald Walsch's 'god' says -
Love is that which is free, for freedom is the essence of what god is, and love is god expressed.

Love is the freedom to express the most joyous part of who you really are - the part that knows that you are one with every thing and every one. This is the truth of your being, and is the aspect of Self which you will most urgently and earnestly seek to experience.


This freedom to express the most joyous part of who you really are does notice the environments and relationships in which you are given length-breadth-depth in which to express that freedom.

If folks are uncomfortable in deep levels of authenticity and honesty - the highest forms of love, then it would be unloving to foist them into it, they would flail and react in fear to the lack of boundaries that conditions them to feel safe. Hence we have deep relationships and superficial relationships by all but silent agreement.

I don't actually think this has anything to do with exclusivity, or sex, it's more about agreements made and honesty about what the relationship serves in who we really are, and what it doesn't. Monogamy is a societal construct.

In example one can have deeply intimate platonic relationships, so deep that sexual partners unaware of the parameters of the relationship may become jealous of the intimacy shared. Now for me, one does not take anything away from the other so I am more likely to embrace, encourage and celebrate if a person has friends who love them deeply and provide a 'safe' environment for them to explore who they really are. Similarly in negotiating parameters of relationships my platonic relationships are 'off limits' as in: No I will not give up relating deeply with others in love in order to 'gain' love from someone or ease their baseless fears.

I am love, so no one can take love away from me, nor can they bestow it upon me, we can only create the space for each of us to be who we already are - love. I find that space with human friends, with my parrot friend (currently sitting on my shoulder having a nap while I type feeling uber-safe) and other species friends who are at my level of awareness of freedom and response ability in relating. I find that space in relationship with my self, with nature, with experience, with life.

We give ourself the freedom to be who we really are. In societal agreement we seek to find like partners.

In some ways the muddying of the waters where sex and commitment and vows etc are negotiated within societal expectations we kind of tighten the girth around our spontaneity and authenticity, but it need not be if we know who we truly are.

Authentic love is generous and kind and compassionate to self and other, so many of the 'agreements' are made in recognition and acceptance of fear as an experience, rather than in recognition of authentic love.

Albeit culturally exclusivity in sexual relations is kinda what monogamous has come to mean so I'm a little :? as to what you are really looking for in answer.
Noun
The practice or state of being married to one person at a time.
The practice or state of having a sexual relationship with only one partner.


In my current relationship all I asked was that it be okay for me to be me.
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen
http://www.balancinginfluences.com
User avatar
smiileyjen101
 
Posts: 3681
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

Re: Romance and the Ego

Postby Enlightened2B » Tue Jul 30, 2013 3:49 am

TemporalDissonance wrote: I think there is an element of exploration and letting go of how someone ought to be on the body/mind level. Perhaps, better put is when you allow someone to be him or herself just as they are, dirt and all, and share in delight in deploring all those dirt and all without expectations whether the dirt level goes up or not (obviously one may prefer less or more dirt to began with) then you may found someone to be in a monogamous relationship with and see where it goes.


The part in bold I believe is very important. It's something that I've done numerous times in the past. I think when we create the image in our minds of how something "should be" or how we'd "like it to be", that leads to suffering when it is revealed to be false and like you said acceptance of the person for who they are is vital. We have the choice to stay or leave. Granted, all of our memories/beliefs create this perception of our "ideal mate" which of course doesn't exist. Then again, I'm sure most of us have done this on some level at some point of our lives. Sometimes, maybe certain people come in to our lives to point this out to us. I don't know. Maybe that's just me with fairy tale thinking 8)
Enlightened2B
 
Posts: 1867
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Romance and the Ego

Postby Enlightened2B » Tue Jul 30, 2013 3:55 am

tod wrote: Being bound to a particular self image is monogamy isn't it?


Well, monogamy is merely another concept in itself. However, what it points to can or cannot be considered "binding". It's only binding if you allow it to be. For the one who agrees to it, there is nothing binding about it because free will exists as a choice to stay or leave. For one to commit to monogamy, the choice was theirs and they were the ones who made the choice in the first place.

Not sure what you mean by self image in this scenario. Self image of what monogamy represents? Or self image of the "ideal mate"?
Enlightened2B
 
Posts: 1867
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Romance and the Ego

Postby Enlightened2B » Tue Jul 30, 2013 4:26 am

Love is the freedom to express the most joyous part of who you really are - the part that knows that you are one with every thing and every one. This is the truth of your being, and is the aspect of Self which you will most urgently and earnestly seek to experience.


I like this :D


I am love, so no one can take love away from me, nor can they bestow it upon me, we can only create the space for each of us to be who we already are - love. I find that space with human friends, with my parrot friend (currently sitting on my shoulder having a nap while I type feeling uber-safe) and other species friends who are at my level of awareness of freedom and response ability in relating. I find that space in relationship with my self, with nature, with experience, with life.


Other species of friends?? Other than humans? 8)

We give ourself the freedom to be who we really are. In societal agreement we seek to find like partners.


Was this meant to imply that seeking life partners is something you agree with or not?


Albeit culturally exclusivity in sexual relations is kinda what monogamous has come to mean so I'm a little :? as to what you are really looking for in answer.
[/quote]

Basically, I was just trying to get an idea of what others view as important to a monogamous relationship in their opinions in the context of what monogamy represents with or without sex. Whether it's a term coined by society or merely silent agreement, it exists.
Enlightened2B
 
Posts: 1867
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Romance and the Ego

Postby smiileyjen101 » Tue Jul 30, 2013 5:17 am

Jen said: We give ourself the freedom to be who we really are. In societal agreement we seek to find like partners.


E2B said: Was this meant to imply that seeking life partners is something you agree with or not?


:lol: Look at the difference one little letter can make :lol: !!
Wonder what emotion skewed that?
I neither agree nor disagree with the changed statement though.
For me, time does not define the quality or the intensity or the authenticity of a relationship.
My parents have a long lived marriage and it works for them. I think understanding what agreement you are making if you're making one, and making it freely, is more important.

I think you would enjoy Conversations with God discussions on relationships. We are attracted to and interact in relationship to others (inc other species) to experience who we really are, all the time. How we relate - if we are being authentic and loving - is important in understanding who we really are, who others really are. Being honest and not lying to ourselves or others is important. Being Love - gratitude and generosity is important. Balancing love for self and other is important and can only be learned in relationship with others.

In it he mentions that its also important to honour the time to let go of a relationship - when it no longer serves you. (and of course he's talking about the higher you) rather than demonise the 'other', or create a ruckus or distraction, being honest to your self and the other.

Basically, I was just trying to get an idea of what others view as important to a monogamous relationship in their opinions in the context of what monogamy represents with or without sex. Whether it's a term coined by society or merely silent agreement, it exists.


Bringing awareness into all your relating, separate the cultural 'norms' and consciously choosing your responses to things. I think at its best relating brings you to the fore - the real you, and allows another to come to the fore too.
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen
http://www.balancinginfluences.com
User avatar
smiileyjen101
 
Posts: 3681
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

Re: Romance and the Ego

Postby tod » Tue Jul 30, 2013 5:49 am

Enlightened2B wrote:
tod wrote: Being bound to a particular self image is monogamy isn't it?

<snip>
Not sure what you mean by self image in this scenario. Self image of what monogamy represents? Or self image of the "ideal mate"?


Self image as who you imagine yourself to be. Thus monogamy may be seen as marriage or bondage to self image, the very notion of who you are.
tod
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:25 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Romance and the Ego

Postby Enlightened2B » Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:51 am

:lol: Look at the difference one little letter can make :lol: !!
Wonder what emotion skewed that?


Yikes! I don't know how that happened :shock: I'll blame it on my cat running across the keyboard :D

How we relate - if we are being authentic and loving - is important in understanding who we really are, who others really are. Being honest and not lying to ourselves or others is important. Being Love - gratitude and generosity is important. Balancing love for self and other is important and can only be learned in relationship with others.


Read an excerpt online. Looks like a really interesting book. Thanks so much for the recommendation. I'm going to add it to my library of books to read recommended from this forum alone. The part that confused me in the excerpt that I read was the part in bold from your quote. Can you explain that? When indicating understanding "who we really are", is that basically a reference to our "true selves" or is he referring to something completely different?

In it he mentions that its also important to honour the time to let go of a relationship - when it no longer serves you. (and of course he's talking about the higher you) rather than demonise the 'other', or create a ruckus or distraction, being honest to your self and the other.


I think this is incredible advise that I completely agree with. It's something I could have used YEARS ago 8)
It's just not always that simple as to when to "let go". When things feel right, they are right. However, when things are NOT right, how do we know that perhaps we should still hold on as perhaps there is a lesson to be learned? I really don't like reading into things and prefer to keep things simple, but I think this is a valid question.
Enlightened2B
 
Posts: 1867
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Romance and the Ego

Postby Enlightened2B » Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:05 am

tod wrote:
Enlightened2B wrote:
tod wrote: Being bound to a particular self image is monogamy isn't it?

<snip>
Not sure what you mean by self image in this scenario. Self image of what monogamy represents? Or self image of the "ideal mate"?


Self image as who you imagine yourself to be. Thus monogamy may be seen as marriage or bondage to self image, the very notion of who you are.


I'd take any kind of perception of ourselves to be a self image because there is no true perception of what we really are. It already is. It's really late here on the east coast, so maybe I'm just completely brain dead at this hour :?, but it seems like you are referring to self image as both "who you imagine yourself to be" and "the very notion of who you are" in ultimately the same sentence. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Enlightened2B
 
Posts: 1867
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Romance and the Ego

Postby tod » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:35 pm

Enlightened2B wrote:
tod wrote:Self image as who you imagine yourself to be. Thus monogamy may be seen as marriage or bondage to self image, the very notion of who you are.


I'd take any kind of perception of ourselves to be a self image because there is no true perception of what we really are. It already is. It's really late here on the east coast, so maybe I'm just completely brain dead at this hour :?, but it seems like you are referring to self image as both "who you imagine yourself to be" and "the very notion of who you are" in ultimately the same sentence. Correct me if I'm wrong.


Well, perception is a tricky word. It involves some level of conception/interpretation. (See here: http://grammarist.com/usage/conceive-perceive/ )
Extract:
To perceive is to become aware of something directly through the senses. To conceive is to form something in the mind or to develop an understanding. So perceiving is merely seeing, and conceiving is deeper.

But perception often involves passive evaluation, and this is where the line between the verbs perceive and conceive becomes blurred. Think of perceptions as relatively shallow interpretations, and conceptions as more creative interpretations involving substantial thought or imagination.


Hence the three bolded phrases that you and I wrote above refer to a conception/interpretation of our self, however subtle; so do not refer to 'the actual case', ie as you say "It already is" - but even saying these words is saying too much as any words are a conceptualization/interpretation of what cannot be conceptualized/interpreted without utilising imagination/thought.

And any kind of relationship is the relating of such concepts.
tod
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:25 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Romance and the Ego

Postby Enlightened2B » Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:27 pm

tod wrote:
Enlightened2B wrote:
tod wrote:Self image as who you imagine yourself to be. Thus monogamy may be seen as marriage or bondage to self image, the very notion of who you are.


I'd take any kind of perception of ourselves to be a self image because there is no true perception of what we really are. It already is. It's really late here on the east coast, so maybe I'm just completely brain dead at this hour :?, but it seems like you are referring to self image as both "who you imagine yourself to be" and "the very notion of who you are" in ultimately the same sentence. Correct me if I'm wrong.


Well, perception is a tricky word. It involves some level of conception/interpretation. (See here: http://grammarist.com/usage/conceive-perceive/ )
Extract:
To perceive is to become aware of something directly through the senses. To conceive is to form something in the mind or to develop an understanding. So perceiving is merely seeing, and conceiving is deeper.

But perception often involves passive evaluation, and this is where the line between the verbs perceive and conceive becomes blurred. Think of perceptions as relatively shallow interpretations, and conceptions as more creative interpretations involving substantial thought or imagination.


Hence the three bolded phrases that you and I wrote above refer to a conception/interpretation of our self, however subtle; so do not refer to 'the actual case', ie as you say "It already is" - but even saying these words is saying too much as any words are a conceptualization/interpretation of what cannot be conceptualized/interpreted without utilising imagination/thought.

And relationship is the relating of such concepts.


Thanks Tod. I view our experiences as basically....fragments of "awareness/source" perceiving the world via different experiences in the human form.

After reading more excerpts from Conversations with God, I have an understanding of where the author is coming from. Essentially insinuating that we are "nothing" until there is an object to 'relate' to which is exactly along the lines of the non-duality teachings. I think I have a better idea now of where we term 'monogamy' from.

It's essentially within sexual/physical intimacy parameters that the term "monogamy" exists in the conventional sense. Let's think about it for a second.....yes....think

In our awakened state meaning we have a clear understanding of what and who we are, we form relationships (platonic, family, etc.) with others because we enjoy their company and feel them as a direct expression of OUR true selves since once again, they ARE us in another physical body. Even people we have NOTHING in common with are often friends with us. There is empathy and compassion automatically in every moment that ego does not show its head. We have an opportunity to extend our love to another by being true to ourselves and in turn, being true to "others". As Jen indicated, honesty is the highest form of love. I think when we are honest with who we are, love is an automatic side effect. It's a blissful feeling, knowing that we ARE the present moment, nothing more and nothing less. I feel the purpose of existence in this human form is to evolve consciousness to the best of our ability. But, once we are there, there's not much else we can do, but enjoy what is. Once we reach that level of knowledge of true selves, it's merely an opportunity to extend that love which is an automatic side effect of awakening to others and enjoy the form that we find ourselves in. Again, nothing that has to be DONE, but just the act of BEING in our natural state, is love in itself when interacting with others because we are relating to them through our TRUE nature and not the form we confuse ourselves with... "ego".

So, with that said, we form relationships with others merely at this stage of our awakening process merely because....why not? Even the older lady that I just saw in the elevator 15 minutes ago who I might never see again, I had a relationship with her. The relationship lasted 2.5 minutes (my building has very slow elevators), but that relationship will affect each other's reality (hence, I'm talking about it right now). Therefore, we have the opportunity to affect other's lives in a positive manner when we can extend that love to others. When we see the other as ourselves in a different body, there's only pure love for that person. How could there not be?

Once physical attraction happens, desire comes into play and there's a certain level of ego at work. That's where we decide that we want to see one person over and over and over again. It's our natural human form. Because of the physical attraction which is where it often stems from, romantic relationships begin. The reason they stay monogamous is because of one thing.....sex/physical intimacy. It's perfectly understandable too especially in this day and age with the state of STD's. So, it makes sense to me. I wouldn't want to be "fooling around" with multiple partners at once. If there is no sex or physical intimacy, then monogamy doesn't have the same sense of parameters that it would have when two people are intimate physically. Of course, we can still choose to be monogamous if we are NOT physical as well. Companionship is a beautiful thing.

I feel that once we are complete as our true selves, there really is no NEED anymore for 'romance' to complete us as Merlin indicated. It's merely just enjoying this existence and more of an opportunity as TD and others have said all along to express our love fully in the form of just allowing whatever happens to happen. After all, that's all we are and all we can be.

Just my take
Enlightened2B
 
Posts: 1867
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Romance and the Ego

Postby smiileyjen101 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:27 am

In our awakened state meaning we have a clear understanding of what and who we are, we form relationships (platonic, family, etc.) with others because we enjoy their company and feel them as a direct expression of OUR true selves since once again, they ARE us in another physical body. Even people we have NOTHING in common with are often friends with us. There is empathy and compassion automatically in every moment that ego does not show its head. We have an opportunity to extend our love to another by being true to ourselves and in turn, being true to "others". As Jen indicated, honesty is the highest form of love. I think when we are honest with who we are, love is an automatic side effect. It's a blissful feeling, knowing that we ARE the present moment, nothing more and nothing less. I feel the purpose of existence in this human form is to evolve consciousness to the best of our ability. But, once we are there, there's not much else we can do, but enjoy what is. Once we reach that level of knowledge of true selves, it's merely an opportunity to extend that love which is an automatic side effect of awakening to others and enjoy the form that we find ourselves in. Again, nothing that has to be DONE, but just the act of BEING in our natural state, is love in itself when interacting with others because we are relating to them through our TRUE nature and not the form we confuse ourselves with... "ego".


Dear goodness.. I read this with a growing lump of breath in my throat.... akin to the resonance of tears of grace.

Thank you E2B. Thank you.
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen
http://www.balancinginfluences.com
User avatar
smiileyjen101
 
Posts: 3681
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

PreviousNext

Return to Relationships

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests