love and individuality

[6pounder]

Posted by jimrich (here)
Most folks who "fall in love" actually fall into NEED! If you really love someone and are not in NEED of them, you will never take away their identity, own them or impose your self upon your beloved partner BUT if NEED is the underlying, driving force of the relationship, all kinds of NEEDY behaviors and demands will slowly or quickly arise as one make the other their prisoner, private possession, crying post, whipping boy, reason to live, sex slave, therapist, go-for, handy man, TROPHY, game-player, alternate sibling or parent to continue the fighting with them, etc.
Love is truly equal, fair, kind, generous, real, loving and never a game player but NEED just can't help it. Most folks are caught in a NEEDY trap with their chosen possession or opponent (not a partner) and conduct their strange relationship game like a contest or drama to see who will win the next round.
By studying relationship skills from a book or on line, most relationships can be turned around and back into loving partnerships instead of war games. This requires brains and guts because it means going up against the garbage many folks got from their very inadequate parents so your parents might give you a bad time about your "new and improved" relationship style and you will cave in and go back to what your very inadequate parents and others gave you so long ago just to be LOYAL to them and not have them upset with you.
It's your life!
Live in love and happiness or go with what your unhappy, miserable parents left for you.
good luck

realy well said!

[6pounder]

Posted by jimrich (here)
Most folks who "fall in love" actually fall into NEED! If you really love someone and are not in NEED of them, you will never take away their identity, own them or impose your self upon your beloved partner BUT if NEED is the underlying, driving force of the relationship, all kinds of NEEDY behaviors and demands will slowly or quickly arise as one make the other their prisoner, private possession, crying post, whipping boy, reason to live, sex slave, therapist, go-for, handy man, TROPHY, game-player, alternate sibling or parent to continue the fighting with them, etc.
Love is truly equal, fair, kind, generous, real, loving and never a game player but NEED just can't help it. Most folks are caught in a NEEDY trap with their chosen possession or opponent (not a partner) and conduct their strange relationship game like a contest or drama to see who will win the next round.
By studying relationship skills from a book or on line, most relationships can be turned around and back into loving partnerships instead of war games. This requires brains and guts because it means going up against the garbage many folks got from their very inadequate parents so your parents might give you a bad time about your "new and improved" relationship style and you will cave in and go back to what your very inadequate parents and others gave you so long ago just to be LOYAL to them and not have them upset with you.
It's your life!
Live in love and happiness or go with what your unhappy, miserable parents left for you.
good luck

really well said!

[Enola]

Posted by jimrich (here)
BUT if NEED is the underlying, driving force of the relationship, all kinds of NEEDY behaviors and demands will slowly or quickly arise as one make the other their prisoner, private possession, crying post, whipping boy, reason to live, sex slave, therapist, go-for, handy man, TROPHY, game-player, alternate sibling or parent to continue the fighting with them, etc.

LOL. That's quite a long list.

[jimrich]

OH and did I mention such a NEEDY, co-dependent relationship will include: someone to blame for everything that is wrong, your substitute mother or father, the reason for your successes and/or FAILURES, the cause of your excessive drinking or drug use, the reason your kids are so: stupid, mean, inadequate, bad at sports, have such bad report cards, are USELESS, homely, etc., the reason both of you are so poor and never get what you want!
LOL, this sickening list could go on forever because the NEEDY ego can never be satisfied or helped with any form of love and respect whereas the Real You is ALWAYS happy and fulfilled.
Just hope that you and your partner are Real and not 2 unhappy, sour little egos who simply are incapable of making any relationship work.

[Sueanne47]

Jimrich, your describing a narcissist

[ElfeMya]

Posted by Enola (here)

Posted by jimrich (here)
BUT if NEED is the underlying, driving force of the relationship, all kinds of NEEDY behaviors and demands will slowly or quickly arise as one make the other their prisoner, private possession, crying post, whipping boy, reason to live, sex slave, therapist, go-for, handy man, TROPHY, game-player, alternate sibling or parent to continue the fighting with them, etc.

LOL. That's quite a long list.

Whipping boy ??? What is that ???

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by Sueanne47 (here)
Jimrich, your describing a narcissist

Hihiii this made me laught to tears... no disrespect here whatsoever, I have had the privilege of rubbing more than shoulders with a lot of narc and this is... a perfect comment ! Thanks !

[AutumnW]

Describing a strong bond, as "needing" somebody or wanting to "own" them seems a bit bogus to me...a bid for polyamory that misses the mark when it comes to the potential a monogamous relationship CAN offer.

People into polyamory defend it from a moral high ground that seems emotionally insincere. They are not intensely 'loving' several partners simultaneously. They may like their partners, but it is the exception that someone could actually experience the intensity we call 'love' for more than one person.

Many people can't sustain the level of respect commitment and adoration for ONE significant other. That's just one of the many reasons we have such impoverished marriages in our culture of narcissism. And in a narcissistic culture, throw away relationships, defined as glorifying independence, are a contributing factor -- and a bleak state of being. The spiritually vapid emphasis on detachment is a profoundly destructive force.

[ElfeMya]

Just found this...

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=VLH7yUwkBPg

[Orph]

I must be missing something. To me anyway, what people here seem to be talking about is relationships. Relationships aren't love. You can love a person. You can love your pets. You can love eating pizza. But if you require something in return, then it's a relationship. (Well, okay. I require a pizza to taste good, so I guess that's a relationship).

Love is. That's it. Love simply ...... IS.

Relationships are games we play in this drama we call life. And since it is all a game, you can look at it as either right or wrong, good or bad, happy or sad, fulfilling or draining. This very thread is part of the game. We are all here interacting, sharing our thoughts, having a laugh or maybe getting chafed under the skin. We're in a temporary relationship here. Damnit. You ran off to another thread. I'm so hurt. ....... Wait. You're back. YAAAAAAAY.

It's all a game we play. And after it's all said and done, ........... LOVE IS.

{And now, back to your regular scheduled drama}.

[Sueanne47]

Love is .......

[AutumnW]

We are a narcissistic culture and our relationships often reflect this. A truly loving relationship is not a game. A game requires elements of luck and also revealing some pertinent info while concealing other information. This is the essence of a narcissistic attachment. You can have fun within a relationship -- but when you relegate your interactions with significant others to game status, you are demeaning them.

[Pam]

Posted by 6pounder (here)
an individual is like a flower - if you dont want it to wither, dont pluck it. let it be a beautifull flower as it is.

in simple words (and a long explanation) -
people tend to think that once they have found their pair, twin flame, soulmate, etc...
they need to change them to fit into their way of living which in most cases is very similar as puting a cage on them. an invisible one.



during my experiance i was one of those who once they get their girlfriend they start to do everything to change their mate's lifes in order to feel that they are comitted to the relationship. and it is usually by stricting the other from what he is in his single life.

meeting friends of the opposite gender, wearing provocative clothes, going to crowded places, etc...

one must understand that changing others behaivior is building a "cage" instead of a relationship. we all are free individuals and we all want to experiance our lives in any way we want to. a relationship does not mean giving up on your dreams and desires for another. relationship means tagging along to some one you love and respect and getting him into your "bubble" but keeping in mind he is there because he wants to, not because he needs to.

people used to monogamy. and in my honest openion its a cage. a brainwash by sociaty that goes for long time now. the more we are awake, the more we realize that LOVE is not a thing we have for one individual. LOVE is here in us to give to everyone in any way we think of.

taking once freedom and building a "cage" around them, stricting them from being who they are, makes the relationship not based on "love" but based on self ego and self lack of confidance. which leads to eventually one of the sides misserable living in a cage and being denied of his/her freedom.

thats my take on love and individuality. what is yours my dear avalonian friends?

I would have loved to have the wisdom that you do when I was your age, 6pounder. It is so true that the "love" people usually talk about when they are in a romantic relationship is anything but love, most of the time it is the antithesis of love. Most of the time the thing we call love is our attempt to have someone behave in ways that builds up our ego, to fulfill our physical desires. We end up wanting to control the other person, to have them conform and behave in ways that enhances the illusion we have of ourselves. We learn to manipulate and deceive to get the relationship the we want it.

A relationship can also have the the huge spiritual potential to teach us about acceptance and unconditional love.We can have opportunities to practice self control and exercise loyalty and honesty. We can learn to work for the benefit of the group(family) whether than seeking only for self. I have seen monogamous relationships that have been to the benefit of both and of course I have seen tragedies and ridiculous satires of marriage as well.

[AutumnW]

Posted by ElfeMya (here)

Posted by AutumnW (here)

Posted by ElfeMya (here)

Posted by neutronstar (here)
No, I have never had a friends with benefits. If I really liked someone I think that would be hard, but if two people can do it I see nothing wrong with it. The only way it would work for me is if I was attracted to a women but didn't want a relationship. I have found that usually one side wants a relationship though.

I am in awe of people able to do it, I personally can't. Each time I try to visualize it, it looks like a pretty glossy magazine thing but nothing resonates that much, it does not seem to fit with ... my inner nature. Do you think it is all because of our programming ?

On one extreme you have people suffocating their partners in a socially sanctioned monogamous embrace. The other extreme is populated by those who end up commodifying others in the mistaken notion that the empty exercise of "loving" many, sexually, represents freedom for themselves AND others.

Hay Autumn, correct me if I am wrong... trying to really understand this.
One one hand those who are trying to be monogamous and by forcing themselves onto that path end up with a lot of unfulfilled desires and unhappiness and expecations put on their mate that creates the suffocating ( therefore that " don't cut the flower " that 6pounder introduced when he started that thread ) and causes ruin and disarray in the relationship.

On the other hand those who took the opposite path : never settling down and forcing themselves too somehow to have multiple lover and be polyamor even if if also leaves them with a big bunch of unfulfilled needs and desires and expectations that are not taken care of...
If I got this right, this is like people going on a circle, whether they start the journey on thr right part or the left part they end up going around being unhappy. Sucks.

How do we reconcile this ?

Basically. Either way, both modes of being are harmful. Open relationships can work, sometimes. There are those who are cut out for it and can manage it. I am in no position to judge.

But often when I read about 'freedom,' in the context of a romantic or marriage relationship, it brings to mind a situation where the man (most often) is waxing philosophical about freedom, all encompassing love and blah blah blah, when he would simply like to have multiple affairs. If he encourages his partner to do the same, (when she is hesitant) he is being emotionally coercive. Women are wired for exclusive relationships with one partner.

ElfeMya, sometimes people who have multiple simultaneous partners are fulfilled, in the way they perceive and feel fulfillment. I think they leave a swathe of destruction, in their wake, though. Freedom is a slippery concept.

[AutumnW]

Posted by peterpam (here)

Posted by 6pounder (here)
an individual is like a flower - if you dont want it to wither, dont pluck it. let it be a beautifull flower as it is.

in simple words (and a long explanation) -
people tend to think that once they have found their pair, twin flame, soulmate, etc...
they need to change them to fit into their way of living which in most cases is very similar as puting a cage on them. an invisible one.



during my experiance i was one of those who once they get their girlfriend they start to do everything to change their mate's lifes in order to feel that they are comitted to the relationship. and it is usually by stricting the other from what he is in his single life.

meeting friends of the opposite gender, wearing provocative clothes, going to crowded places, etc...

one must understand that changing others behaivior is building a "cage" instead of a relationship. we all are free individuals and we all want to experiance our lives in any way we want to. a relationship does not mean giving up on your dreams and desires for another. relationship means tagging along to some one you love and respect and getting him into your "bubble" but keeping in mind he is there because he wants to, not because he needs to.

people used to monogamy. and in my honest openion its a cage. a brainwash by sociaty that goes for long time now. the more we are awake, the more we realize that LOVE is not a thing we have for one individual. LOVE is here in us to give to everyone in any way we think of.

taking once freedom and building a "cage" around them, stricting them from being who they are, makes the relationship not based on "love" but based on self ego and self lack of confidance. which leads to eventually one of the sides misserable living in a cage and being denied of his/her freedom.

thats my take on love and individuality. what is yours my dear avalonian friends?

I would have loved to have the wisdom that you do when I was your age, 6pounder. It is so true that the "love" people usually talk about when they are in a romantic relationship is anything but love, most of the time it is the antithesis of love. Most of the time the thing we call love is our attempt to have someone behave in ways that builds up our ego, to fulfill our physical desires. We end up wanting to control the other person, to have them conform and behave in ways that enhances the illusion we have of ourselves. We learn to manipulate and deceive to get the relationship the we want it.

A relationship can also have the the huge spiritual potential to teach us about acceptance and unconditional love.We can have opportunities to practice self control and exercise loyalty and honesty. We can learn to work for the benefit of the group(family) whether than seeking only for self. I have seen monogamous relationships that have been to the benefit of both and of course I have seen tragedies and ridiculous satires of marriage as well.

Ditto Peter Pam. I had a 'discussion' with somebody on a forum years ago about the 'sanctity' of marriage. Framing the institution of marriage this way just raises the profane to sentimental heights, based on some dumb ass religion's idea of the 'sacred.' A good half of marriages are mutually parasitic. A good marriage offers an oasis of security and delight in an emotionally arid or stressful world. A bad marriage? Shudder.

[neutronstar]

Basically. Either way, both modes of being are harmful. Open relationships can work, sometimes. There are those who are cut out for it and can manage it. I am in no position to judge.

But often when I read about 'freedom,' in the context of a romantic or marriage relationship, it brings to mind a situation where the man (most often) is waxing philosophical about freedom, all encompassing love and blah blah blah, when he would simply like to have multiple affairs. If he encourages his partner to do the same, (when she is hesitant) he is being emotionally coercive. Women are wired for exclusive relationships with one partner.

ElfeMya, sometimes people who have multiple simultaneous partners are fulfilled, in the way they perceive and feel fulfillment. I think they leave a swathe of destruction, in their wake, though. Freedom is a slippery concept.

I think the bottom line is we are all a little dysfunctional in this classroom called earth.

I am reminded of a story Eckhart Tolle describes in his book "a new earth" about a spiritual master that is in total acceptance of the present moment. I will probably butcher the story a little but you will get the point.

There was a spiritual master who lived in this village, and one day this women, who had just had a child from a man that had left her, knocks on his door. He opens the door and she says to him, "this is your child take care of it". The master takes the child without question and tends to it's every need. A few months goes by and then she knocks on his door again. The master answers it. She says to him, "the child is not yours give it back to me", so he dose without question.

The point of the story is the master was in complete acceptance of the present moment. Whatever was required of him he did with nonresistance. I don't think there are many people in this world that are at that level.

The point I'm trying to make is most all of us resist the world and try to make it the way we want it to be. Whether we are in an open relationship or a monogamous one, we resist what is.

[AutumnW]

Neuronstar, I understand what you are saying, but Tolle is taking a spiritual concept here and misapplying it. Being, 'in the moment,' or acceptance without resistance can be as destructive in some cases as it is helpful.

Taken another way, the woman who gives up a baby, has a problem. The man who easily gives up a child he should have formed a bond with, without resistance or questions, has a problem. Being 'in the moment,' shouldn't be a primer on how to live lives that require planning and care and concern, for others.

For sure though, I get that we have to know when to relax and let go without bitterness. But Tolle seems to be saying something here that represents a kind of fatalism radiating from Eastern philosophies, that are excuses for inaction and also exclude us from bonding with others. Not a complement to the atomized culture we find ourselves in..

I have friends whose response to everything is to 'be in the moment.' They take it such extremes, that they can seem callously indifferent to others.

[greybeard]

Posted by AutumnW (here)
Neuronstar, I understand what you are saying, but Tolle is taking a spiritual concept here and misapplying it. Being, 'in the moment,' or acceptance without resistance can be as destructive in some cases as it is helpful.

Taken another way, the woman who gives up a baby, has a problem. The man who easily gives up a child he should have formed a bond with, without resistance or questions, has a problem. Being 'in the moment,' shouldn't be a primer on how to live lives that require planning and care and concern, for others.

For sure though, I get that we have to know when to relax and let go without bitterness. But Tolle seems to be saying something here that represents a kind of fatalism radiating from Eastern philosophies, that are excuses for inaction and also exclude us from bonding with others. Not a complement to the atomized culture we find ourselves in..

I have friends whose response to everything is to 'be in the moment.' They take it such extremes, that they can seem callously indifferent to others.

When quotes are taken out of context misunderstanding happens.

Eckhart Tolle also said elsewhere that "You are not a door mat"

There is the concept of "Right action" this tends to happen when there is some understanding of spirituality.

So to go about saying "All is well" --is not what Tolle teaches--

There might be times that action is not required--then all is well.
He suggests not to have a knee jerk reaction --when the mind is clear then right action will happen.

To say that Tolle does not teach compassion or that enlightened paths do not include service to others is just not so.

There are paradoxes in spiritual teaching.

Hope this helps.

Chris

[6pounder]

i would like to point the definition of freedom on this matter of relationship.
i see this a concept of let me be who i am and accept me for what i am. its like its not expected of people to instinctivly to go this way but it can be better for both sides or better i say for ourselves if we would first understand our needs and true nature.

monogamy or polyarmy, its not the point of it. those terms are a part of the "relationship" concept. and the concept itself is wrong. we are individuals. we have passions in life and needs some physical some spiritual.
now the idea of freedom in anything about yourself and the people you are attracted to (this is all what i think, no real facts here) is that the common need to try and put them under a tag of relationship in order to keep them close is false.
what should be is that we let ourselves not to be controlled nor limited by those we choose to live our life in their company.

as its been said - love is accepting, respecting and trusting another. then if the other wants to go and have sex with someone else YOU should accept that and within yourself. accept HIM as WHO he is and his wants and needs. RESPECT him and TRUST him. caz eventualy you do not give him love to get it back. you give him love caz you want to. thats what UNCONDITIONAL is. on the other hand you do not get attached to him so you wont be driven by emotions to his manipulations when trying to deny your wants and needs.

all that is an answer to some one who feels like the treditional "relationship" system is against his or hers nature.
but if its prefferd by you to put limitations and expectations that your partner, an individual who has his own freedon, to accept the rules you have set for him in order to be with, then its completely fine thats the norm anyway...

[greybeard]

By coincidence the Eckhart Tolle news letter just arrived and it is very relevant to this thread--as far as I can see.
I pasted it in below
Chris

The question asked of Eckhart.
My loneliness at not having a life partner is an obstacle to my spiritual development.

ET: There’s a part in every person—who you are on the level of form—that tends either towards the male or the female, and it doesn’t necessarily depend on the physical form. You tend either towards the male or the female and, therefore, you’re not complete because you’re only one half on the level of form—which can be the physical form or the psychological or emotional form just underneath that. And so, there is a natural longing for the other polarity—the completeness in a human being—and you can feel that as an ‘ah!’ that goes beyond sexual longing. There’s more to it than that.

There’s also an emotional longing for the other; they go together. There’s that pull that you can feel on the level of form, and when that is not satisfied, then that can lead to unhappiness, particularly if you have not transcended your identification with form.

If you’re still totally identified with you as this physical form and psychological form, the transcendent dimension has not come into your life at all. Then, you will become very dissatisfied—which also depends to some extent on what culture you live in. There are traditional cultures on our planet where you almost have to find a partner or everybody will look down on you as being a total and miserable failure.

But here in the West, it’s a little easier to step out of those collective expectations. It is more acceptable to say, “My choice is not to get married.” And you can even say, “My choice is not to have children,” and people say, “Okay.” So, there’s a bit more freedom and yet the emotional or the sexual longing for the other on the form level is still there.

The essence is to be able to transcend who you are on the level of form. Whether or not you find a partner that meets that longing, or whether you go from one partner to another and another, or whether you find one partner for the rest of your life—that is all secondary, really. Because even if you have a partner, if you have not gone deeper and encountered the transcendent dimension to who you are beyond the form identity then you won’t be satisfied in relationship. In the absence of the transcendent dimension, the spiritual dimension, you may come to some kind of compromise or manage to stay together but you’ll actually have a longing to get out!

So, the people who are out of relationships have a longing to get in, and those who are in have a longing to get out. In the absence of a partner, it is quite possible to notice a certain sense of lack on the level of form and yet maintain a lot of spaciousness around that sense of lack. You recognize, “yes, I can feel that there is a longing,” but the longing does not consume you; the longing has not taken possession of you, making you into an unhappy person, perhaps a totally unfulfilled and bitter person. No, the longing is there but exists within the spaciousness that is the transcendent dimension. Who you are is not the unfulfilled longing; who you are is the presence or the stillness around it. That is the shift.

So the longing may persist, but you can live with it; however if you are no longer trapped in the longing, it’s also quite possible that a change will come into your life, particularly if the intense neediness goes.

If not, then everybody you meet can feel the neediness. You’ve given somebody you just met your phone number and you are waiting for them to call, but they are less likely to call when the neediness is there. They’re more likely to call when a certain spaciousness is there.

Of course you can take action towards meeting somebody. You might not meet the most conscious people in bars, but there are other places one can go to meet people—even the Internet. Why not? Many people meet that way, but even there, if you haven’t gone beyond the absolute neediness then it’s less likely to work out for you. But if you have that sense of inner spaciousness around the longing, then the way in which you approach others changes.

So my suggestion then is, see how and where you could meet people and explore. Perhaps you will find somebody here or there. To realize that the transcendence is the most vital thing does not exclude the possibility of taking action on an outer level. Of course, that is always secondary, but why not? The longing will just become a thing that’s no longer overwhelming and then, take action and see what happens.

[neutronstar]

Posted by 6pounder (here)
i would like to point the definition of freedom on this matter of relationship.
i see this a concept of let me be who i am and accept me for what i am. its like its not expected of people to instinctivly to go this way but it can be better for both sides or better i say for ourselves if we would first understand our needs and true nature.

monogamy or polyarmy, its not the point of it. those terms are a part of the "relationship" concept. and the concept itself is wrong. we are individuals. we have passions in life and needs some physical some spiritual.
now the idea of freedom in anything about yourself and the people you are attracted to (this is all what i think, no real facts here) is that the common need to try and put them under a tag of relationship in order to keep them close is false.
what should be is that we let ourselves not to be controlled nor limited by those we choose to live our life in their company.

as its been said - love is accepting, respecting and trusting another. then if the other wants to go and have sex with someone else YOU should accept that and within yourself. accept HIM as WHO he is and his wants and needs. RESPECT him and TRUST him. caz eventualy you do not give him love to get it back. you give him love caz you want to. thats what UNCONDITIONAL is. on the other hand you do not get attached to him so you wont be driven by emotions to his manipulations when trying to deny your wants and needs.

all that is an answer to some one who feels like the treditional "relationship" system is against his or hers nature.
but if its prefferd by you to put limitations and expectations that your partner, an individual who has his own freedon, to accept the rules you have set for him in order to be with, then its completely fine thats the norm anyway...

I get what your saying and I think the world you want is what it is like in our real home. Heaven if you want to call it that. But I think this world is a long way from that. I really doubt it will change in our lifetime.