Forget relationships and learn how to relate.... ~OSHO~

[JewelleNY]

Found this and thought it was very interesting but a little long Thoughts?

IS RELATIONSHIP THERE BECAUSE LOVE IS NOT?

yes. Love is not a relationship. Love relates, but it is not a relationship. A relationship is something finished. A relationship is a noun; the full stop has come, the honeymoon is over. Now there is no joy, no enthusiasm, now all is finished.

You can carry it on, just to keep your promises. You can carry it on because it is comfortable, convenient, cozy. You can carry it on because there is nothing else to do.

You can carry it on because if you disrupt it, it is going to create much trouble for you.

Relationship means something complete, finished, closed. Love is never a relationship; love is relating. It is always a river, flowing, unending. Love knows no full stop; the honeymoon begins but never ends. It is not like a novel that starts at a certain point and ends at a certain point. It is an ongoing phenomenon. Lovers end, love continues. It is a continuum. It is a verb, not a noun. And why do we reduce the beauty of relating to relationship? Why are we in such a hurry? -- because to relate is insecure, and relationship is a security, relationship has a certainty.

Relating is just a meeting of two strangers, maybe just an overnight stay and in the morning we say goodbye. Who knows what is going to happen tomorrow? And we are so afraid that we want to make it certain, we want to make it predictable. We would like tomorrow to be according to our ideas; we don't allow it freedom to have its own say. So we immediately reduce every verb to a noun.

You are in love with a woman or a man and immediately you start thinking of getting married. Make it a legal contract. Why? How does the law come into love? The law comes into love because love is not there. It is only a fantasy, and you know the fantasy will disappear. Before it disappears settle down, before it disappears do something so it becomes impossible to separate.

In a better world, with more meditative people, with a little more enlightenment spread over the earth, people will love, love immensely, but their love will remain a relating, not a relationship. And I am not saying that their love will be only momentary. There is every possibility their love may go deeper than your love, may have a higher quality of intimacy, may have something more of poetry and more of God in it. And there is every possibility their love may last longer than your so-called relationship ever lasts. But it will not be guaranteed by the law, by the court, by the policeman.

The guarantee will be inner. It will be a commitment from the heart, it will be a silent communion. If you enjoy being with somebody, you would like to enjoy it more and more. If you enjoy the intimacy, you would like to explore the intimacy more and more.

And there are a few flowers of love which bloom only after long intimacies. There are seasonal flowers too; within six weeks they are there in the sun, but within six weeks again they are gone forever. There are flowers which take years to come, and there are flowers which take many years to come. The longer it takes, the deeper it goes.

But it has to be a commitment from one heart to another heart. It has not even to be verbalized, because to verbalize it is to profane it. It has to be a silent commitment; eye to eye, heart to heart, being to being. It has to be understood, not said.

It is so ugly seeing people going to the church or the court to get married. It is so ugly, so inhuman. It simply shows they can't trust themselves, they trust the policeman more than they trust their own inner voice. It shows they can't trust their love, they trust the law.

Forget relationships and learn how to relate. Once you are in a relationship you start taking each other for granted. That's what destroys all love affairs. The woman thinks she knows the man, the man thinks he knows the woman. Nobody knows either. It is impossible to know the other, the other remains a mystery. And to take the other for granted is insulting, disrespectful.

To think that you know your wife is very very ungrateful. How can you know the woman? How can you know the man? They are processes, they are not things. The woman that you knew yesterday is not there today. So much water has gone down the Ganges; she is somebody else, totally different. Relate again, start again, don't take it for granted.

And the man that you slept with last night, look at his face again in the morning. He is no more the same person so much has changed. So much, incalculably much, has changed. That is the difference between a thing and a person. The furniture in the room is the same, but the man and the woman, they are no more the same. Explore again, start again. That's what I mean by relating.

 

[JewelleNY]

Relating means you are always starting, you are continuously trying to become acquainted. Again and again, you are introducing yourself to each other. You are trying to see the many facets of the other's personality. You are trying to penetrate deeper and deeper into his realm of inner feelings, into the deep recesses of his being. You are trying to unravel a mystery which cannot be unraveled.

That is the joy of love: the exploration of consciousness. And if you relate, and don't reduce it to a relationship, then the other will become a mirror to you. Exploring him, unawares you will be exploring yourself too. Getting deeper into the other, knowing his feelings, his thoughts, his deeper stirrings, you will be knowing your own deeper stirrings too. Lovers become mirrors to each other, and then love becomes a meditation. Relationship is ugly, relating is beautiful.

In relationship both persons become blind to each other. Just think, how long has it been since you saw your wife eye to eye? How long has it been since you looked at your husband? Maybe years. Who looks at one's own wife? You have already taken it for granted that you know her. What more is there to look at? You are more interested in strangers than in the people you know -- you know the whole topography of their bodies, you know how they respond, you know everything that has happened is going to happen again and again. It is a repetitive circle.

It is not so, it is not really so. Nothing ever repeats; everything is new every day. Just your eyes become old, your assumptions become old, your mirror gathers dust and you become incapable of reflecting the other.

Hence I say relate. By saying relate, I mean remain continuously on a honeymoon. Go on searching and seeking each other, finding new ways of loving each other, finding new ways of being with each other. And each person is such an infinite mystery, inexhaustible, unfathomable, that it is not possible that you can ever say, 'I have known her,' or, 'I have known him.' At the most you can say, 'I have tried my best, but the mystery remains a mystery.'

In fact the more you know, the more mysterious the other becomes. Then love is a constant adventure.



OSHO

 

[JFemme]

In fact the more you know, the more mysterious the other becomes. Then love is a constant adventure.

OSHO

I find this to be true for a variety of reasons...

thanks for posting such thought provoking topics...

 

[JewelleNY]

I find this to be true for a variety of reasons...

thanks for posting such thought provoking topics...

Thanks JFemme, I really enjoyed this article although I don't agree that Marriage is "ugly" but it makes so much sense to me and how I have viewed relationships since I was a young child and why I had vowed never to marry in my twenties. Now that I am considering it I wonder how much has society and social norms have altered that view over the years. I hope I can find some kind of happy medium because the white picket fence and 2.5 kids sounds so good at times

 

[JFemme]

I hope I can find some kind of happy medium because the white picket fence and 2.5 kids sounds so good at times

I'm sure you will

 

[Strangefruittree]

This is the most eloquent way to state a feeling that I have known for a while... When I say it I sound non committal - I dont like or need a label and prefer not to have one. I find that the minute someone wants to go defining the exchange- the encounter gets put into a box and it is not allowed to grow . right on with this one.

 

[frizzy]

Mmmm food for thought. Thanks for sharing.

 

[frizzy]

Was this written by a man or a woman? I'm leaning toward man for some reason.

 

[JewelleNY]

Was this written by a man or a woman? I'm leaning toward man for some reason.

by a man. may I ask what makes you think that?

 

[frizzy]

The POV tells me its from a man. In particular, women are more marriage and commitment minded. This article seems like it's trying not to "put a label" on the relationship, and that is almost purely a male type thing.

I'm gonna read it a little more discerningly tomorrow, but I'm kinda feeling like somebody is getting the shaft on the other end of this article. Marriage is a beautiful thang.

 

[AnjelLuvs]

^^^I didnt get that the writer was saying that Marriage per se is Ugly, but it becomes redundant... The couple no longer finds the need to explore their mate... Hence, why some find marriage boring, or Men lose interest in their wives... They think they know it all about the other, but everyone changes daily and in "relationships/marriage" people dont realize the continuous change...

 

[Britt]

^^^I didnt get that the writer was saying that Marriage per se is Ugly, but it becomes redundant... The couple no longer finds the need to explore their mate... Hence, why some find marriage boring, or Men lose interest in their wives... They think they know it all about the other, but everyone changes daily and in "relationships/marriage" people dont realize the continuous change...

This is exactly what I got from the article. All relationships become redundant but there is always more to explore about the person you are with instead of becoming enamored with the 'new shiny' stranger.

 

[anon123]

Here is the link:

http://www.creationsmagazine.com/articles/C100/Osho.html

A good chunk of it sounds like a lot of gobbledy gook to me. "a relationship is a noun, the honeymoon is over. Now there is no joy . . ." Says who? You? I get so annoyed when people just make up their own definitions for words that we all use. This sounds like a bunch of hand waving to downplay the importance of relationships and commitment. As though a sense of security is something disgusting for humans to desire and pursue. I call BS on this article.[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

 

[Bunny77]

Here is the link:

http://www.creationsmagazine.com/articles/C100/Osho.html

A good chunk of it sounds like a lot of gobbledy gook to me. "a relationship is a noun, the honeymoon is over. Now there is no joy . . ." Says who? You? I get so annoyed when people just make up their own definitions for words that we all use. This sounds like a bunch of hand waving to downplay the importance of relationships and commitment. As though a sense of security is something disgusting for humans to desire and pursue. I call BS on this article.[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

I agree. This sounds like a bunch of new-agey, "higher consciousness" type of thinking that perceives itself to be "better than" or "deeper than" traditional thoughts on marriage and relationships.

And I'm not saying that traditional is automatically better, but these folks are just as guilty as some traditionalists by trying to claim that their ideas are somehow superior.

And yes, he was criticizing marriage in this comment....

"It is so ugly seeing people going to the church or the court to get married. It is so ugly, so inhuman. It simply shows they can't trust themselves, they trust the policeman more than they trust their own inner voice. It shows they can't trust their love, they trust the law."

Ugly? Okay, miss me with that.

I will say, I've dated a few men with this "new age" mentality because I at first bought into these ideas as being enlightened... until I realized they were mostly gobbledy-gook BS... and the "new agey" men usually had the most f'ed up relationships of them all... you know, because they were always trying to "relate" to the next best thing and find excuses to move on when things got tough in their current relationships.

 

[JewelleNY]

^^^^Hey Bunny,

It's funny because, for me, I could not tell whether a man or woman wrote it because I feel I could have written much of it. I know many women also agreed with it. I think we are definitely very socialized to gender roles in this culture because I have always fought gender roles since I was a child.

I am told I am like a guy in relationships and always had the guy pushing for a committment from me, the c word was not in my vocabulary . Maybe in this society marriage is very effective because of how the society is constructed but I just can not accept that only a new age type of guy feels this way because I have always felt like this.

I don't know how well this works practically speaking but I do personally think that too much emphasis is placed on titles and roles and boundaries and restrictions in relationships that it can start to feel like a business matter, which, for some, I think it is.

I guess not everything is going to work for everyone but I don't think it's something that only guys experience. JMO

 

[JewelleNY]

^^^I didnt get that the writer was saying that Marriage per se is Ugly, but it becomes redundant... The couple no longer finds the need to explore their mate... Hence, why some find marriage boring, or Men lose interest in their wives... They think they know it all about the other, but everyone changes daily and in "relationships/marriage" people dont realize the continuous change...

I agree Angel

 

[aribell]

In relationship both persons become blind to each other. Just think, how long has it been since you saw your wife eye to eye? How long has it been since you looked at your husband? Maybe years. Who looks at one's own wife? You have already taken it for granted that you know her. What more is there to look at? You are more interested in strangers than in the people you know -- you know the whole topography of their bodies, you know how they respond, you know everything that has happened is going to happen again and again. It is a repetitive circle.

I wonder though if it's the status of the relationship or whether people themselves start becoming less interesting as individuals. If they don't continue to develop as individuals and have interests and passions, learning new things and growing, then there won't be anything new to discover or to talk about. I agreed with what he said about relating anew everyday, but I do not think that everyone is growing as a person or moving in process. Those who continually deal with boredom are usually those who are boring themselves.

 

[FlowerHair]

I'm suspicious of Osho...this was something interesting to ponder on though.

 

[Bunny77]

^^^^Hey Bunny,

It's funny because, for me, I could not tell whether a man or woman wrote it because I feel I could have written much of it. I know many women also agreed with it. I think we are definitely very socialized to gender roles in this culture because I have always fought gender roles since I was a child.

I am told I am like a guy in relationships and always had the guy pushing for a committment from me, the c word was not in my vocabulary . Maybe in this society marriage is very effective because of how the society is constructed but I just can not accept that only a new age type of guy feels this way because I have always felt like this.

I don't know how well this works practically speaking but I do personally think that too much emphasis is placed on titles and roles and boundaries and restrictions in relationships that it can start to feel like a business matter, which, for some, I think it is.

I guess not everything is going to work for everyone but I don't think it's something that only guys experience. JMO

Hey Jewelle!

You know, I do respect the fact that there are plenty of women who are not looking for a committed relationship/marriage/titles/etc. I am definitely an advocate of living one's life as she sees fit!

In this case though, I could tell a man had written these piece because of the tone. It wasn't so much that he was sharing his thoughts... I felt he was lecturing. Lecturing about what's "right" and what's "wrong" and how we should "do this," and not "do that." Really, it seems very contradictory because just as his beliefs might work for some, they are no more right or correct or "real" than the way someone else chooses to have a relationship.

Men seem to think/write in absolutes... therefore, this seemed to have "male writer" all over it. And maybe too, I've met this type of guy a zillion times... I know the "lingo." Lots of talk about artificial boundaries, boxes, restrictions, etc.... and as Mwedzi said, who says that those who choose traditionally are restricting themselves or following societal norms? Maybe that's what they prefer and they don't feel the least bit boxed in... the only box a relationship can be in is the one that the two people create. Relationships can be whatever they want to be... it all depends on the people in them.

 

[Strangefruittree]

Just because the relationship does not have a title or two people are not married, does not mean they do not value and practice monagamy, it does not mean they love the other person any less, in fact they way i interpert and hold this belief, it means the person can mean so much more. You never have to wonder when you are looking at someone if in that very moment they are there because they have to be (unhappy, rationalized its cheaper to keep her or him) or if they are choosing to be in your presence. I think that is the part that is getting miscontrued. When people are dating and think about young love, its all fun because of the wonder of it all... LAbels and marriage are pretty much agreements and contracts that say (while you are in young love) we promise to be together nomatter what, which is profound as well. I am of the type that want people to be there because they want to at every given time... and not be afraid due to some major loss, to tell me they dont want me anymore.
I feel that every time I see the person they want my company and I appreciate that. I feel that an understanding like that will allow for us to see if we can grow together as individuals but together. I feel that I am less likely to be involved in a loveless marriage. And if I have a relationship like that for sometime, and choose to pursue marrage, my marriage would be more likely to last.

 

[JewelleNY]

I'm suspicious of Osho...this was something interesting to ponder on though.

FH, why are you suspicious of OSHO, I really do not know much about him.

And I would love to hear your thoughts

 

[FlowerHair]

FH, why are you suspicious of OSHO, I really do not know much about him.

And I would love to hear your thoughts

I'm suspicious because I have an aquaintance who followed him for a while, not sure if she still does...

Osho was the leader of a cult.

My friend is "out there" when it comes to spirituality, she offered to send me 5 angels the other day so I'm not sure if I can blame Osho for all of it.

But her friends are a little bit weird as well. Their behavior is what makes me suspicious. I don't even know how to describe it. They hug and kiss when they meet (all sexes) and make little groaning sounds while looking eachother in the eyes with a "loving gaze". I was scared to death (homophobic, I know lol!) when I visited her because I don't like strangers touching me like that.

You may know him by the name of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osho_(Bhagwan_Shree_Rajneesh)

 

[aribell]

I'm suspicious because I have an aquaintance who followed him for a while, not sure if she still does...

Osho was the leader of a cult.

My friend is "out there" when it comes to spirituality, she offered to send me 5 angels the other day so I'm not sure if I can blame Osho for all of it.

But her friends are a little bit weird as well. Their behavior is what makes me suspicious. I don't even know how to describe it. They hug and kiss when they meet (all sexes) and make little groaning sounds while looking eachother in the eyes with a "loving gaze". I was scared to death (homophobic, I know lol!) when I visited her because I don't like strangers touching me like that.

You may know him by the name of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osho_(Bhagwan_Shree_Rajneesh)

(I wish there were a smiley to adequately convey my facial expression.)

 

[tinkat]

This is the most eloquent way to state a feeling that I have known for a while... When I say it I sound non committal - I dont like or need a label and prefer not to have one. I find that the minute someone wants to go defining the exchange- the encounter gets put into a box and it is not allowed to grow . right on with this one.

I feel u on that...

Just because the relationship does not have a title or two people are not married, does not mean they do not value and practice monagamy, it does not mean they love the other person any less, in fact they way i interpert and hold this belief, it means the person can mean so much more. You never have to wonder when you are looking at someone if in that very moment they are there because they have to be (unhappy, rationalized its cheaper to keep her or him) or if they are choosing to be in your presence. I think that is the part that is getting miscontrued. When people are dating and think about young love, its all fun because of the wonder of it all... LAbels and marriage are pretty much agreements and contracts that say (while you are in young love) we promise to be together nomatter what, which is profound as well. I am of the type that want people to be there because they want to at every given time... and not be afraid due to some major loss, to tell me they dont want me anymore.
I feel that every time I see the person they want my company and I appreciate that. I feel that an understanding like that will allow for us to see if we can grow together as individuals but together. I feel that I am less likely to be involved in a loveless marriage. And if I have a relationship like that for sometime, and choose to pursue marrage, my marriage would be more likely to last.

ITA ITA ITA

 

[FlowerHair]

(I wish there were a smiley to adequately convey my facial expression.)

So I guess you can imagine how I felt because I was the only "outsider"
Her poor parents were there too.

They are supposed to be so loving, but one of them tried to charge me money for giving me a ride back to Stockholm. I said, no thanks I'll take the train. I don't give money to greedy people.

 

[anon123]

hmm, I wonder does this work for children, too. I don't have any, but I strongly suspect parents get tired some times and want to be like "I am no longer enjoying your presence. I'll return when my aura is no longer oppressed by your whining." The thing about life is, sometimes it is bigger than the completely selfish feeling of what you want right now. I'm not one who thinks all selfishness should be denied, but I don't believe you should live your life on the whim of doing whatever you want to do right now, anyone else who is depending on you be damned. I also believe meaning in life is more than love, at least as it seems to be being defined here. That form of fair-weather love is not all in my world, and it is worth little without the accompanying self sacrifices. Because yes, I believe meaningful love does not abandon someone due to temporary displeasure or even temporary unhappiness.

 

[aribell]

^^^ITA. I was thinking earlier today about what I would think and say if a man I were involved with presented me with this type of thinking, not wanting to define things, wanting our love to be free, etc. And in thinking about it in that way, I thought that the thing most clearly missing from that kind of love is simply the promise to be there tomorrow. If I define a relationship, then that says that I've entered into something beyond myself and my present feelings will be made subject to the overarching commitment I've made.

I don't see why that's a bad thing. We commit ourselves to a lot of things in life in order to ensure that we aren't carried to and fro by every change of feeling and inclination we might have because we have an end goal in mind.

I know of people who have been together decades without legal marriage. But I think in all of those instances there was a clear understanding that they were committed to one another and remaining with one another.

I just read a quote that said something to the effect that maturity and decisiveness mean being able to choose one's love and then to nurture the love that one has chosen. Basically, actively choosing where to direct one's attention and affection and consistently following through with that choice.

 

[hopeful]

IMHO there is nothing more special than exploring, relating, loving, and growing within a committed relationship, particularly within a marriage. DH and I find something new, sparkly, interesting about each other year after year.

 

[Strangefruittree]

hmm, I wonder does this work for children, too. I don't have any, but I strongly suspect parents get tired some times and want to be like "I am no longer enjoying your presence. I'll return when my aura is no longer oppressed by your whining." The thing about life is, sometimes it is bigger than the completely selfish feeling of what you want right now. I'm not one who thinks all selfishness should be denied, but I don't believe you should live your life on the whim of doing whatever you want to do right now, anyone else who is depending on you be damned. I also believe meaning in life is more than love, at least as it seems to be being defined here. That form of fair-weather love is not all in my world, and it is worth little without the accompanying self sacrifices. Because yes, I believe meaningful love does not abandon someone due to temporary displeasure or even temporary unhappiness.

I think about the children too. and although i do not have them, I am blessed to be around children who are products of love like this... There is no "baby daddy and baby mama drama" at all.. The people realized that they no longer functioned well as a couple yet they are still excellent parents to the children. and the new SO in the relationship participate in the same type of love and it builds a familial bond and enforces that as opposed to having the roles of mother and father wrapped up in who has sex with who... The more i talk about this, I will have it no other way. I am sure because it has happened, that if a he no longer wanted to be intimate with me, i would be sad, but not forlorned. I have been able to keep friends with guys that are not compatible with me. I can imagine that I wouldnt harbor the ill will against a man even if he was decietful and trifling and knocked me up and bounced... because I would not have a baby unless I was ready to be a parent for life with or with out another... And my circle of support runs deep so, it would be his loss. (All that said, Im 27 with no children, and i just dont feel ready to have them yet)

And... Love like this does not mean its fleeting or leaves you due to a bump. MArriage and labels do not make a person stay, just makes it harder to go legally. I dont feel like i should have to change parts of me that make me me, I should not have to supress characteristics of myself that is not harmful to anyone else. I feel like i should be able to grow and grow with no limits until the day i die. I want that for everyone. I find that sometimes relationships can stifle the growth potential of a person if they are not with the right person they can grow with. I wish my mom realized my hardworking, dependable loving father, stifled her growth potential. IF she hadnt made all those sacrifices, she would be a much happier person. My dad as well, He deserved to be loved dearly by someone who appreciates working a little job and basically just taking care of kids and house. Two good people that should have never married...

 

[Bunny77]

in fact they way i interpert and hold this belief, it means the person can mean so much more. You never have to wonder when you are looking at someone if in that very moment they are there because they have to be (unhappy, rationalized its cheaper to keep her or him) or if they are choosing to be in your presence. I think that is the part that is getting miscontrued. When people are dating and think about

You know, this is a common statement I hear among people who aren't fans of traditional marriage/relationship labels.

The thing is, there are just as many non-married couples staying together for the so-called wrong reasons too. How about the couple that's been together for 10 years, but they don't leave because they've been living together and don't want to start splitting expenses again? Or the person who stays with someone because he/she is good for right now, but they're still looking out for the next best thing? Or the person who just decides that the one she's with is the best she can get right now, and she doesn't leave because she doesn't want to start dating again... so she simply settles for Mr. Okay?

I know PLENTY of folks who fit in all of the above categories, but I guess since they've been together for 10 years, people on the outside will look at them and think that they're "choosing" to stay together because of "love," when it's really because of familiarity, finances, boredom or fear -- just like a lot of married folks.

The problem I have with some of these arguments is that the non-traditional relationships and the people in them are made out to be more loving, more pure and more real, when in actuality, many of them do the same BS that many married couples do and their motivation for staying with someone is no more "loving," "honest" or "real" than a couple that chooses to marry.

And on another note... this was already mentioned to a degree, but there are plenty of married folks that are GLAD that they had a vow that kept them together. It forced them to work through the hard times and the tough moments instead of running away because they "didn't want to be there anymore." So yeah, for a while, there was only a vow keeping them there... but years later, they look back and say they were so thankful that it wasn't easy to leave... because they would have left... and it would have been the worst mistake of their lives.

People (whether married or not) are too quick to run when things get difficult. Instead of people choosing to be happy with a good partner, too many want to run and see if things would be better or if they would be happier with a different partner. I don't know, but I see this whole, "I want him/her to choose to be with me every day," concept to be much more selfish and non-loving than anything.