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

[Strangefruittree]

I agree, the intention with which you do something matters most. It is not my intention to play house with a man and just be satisfied with some ole bs about not wanting to marry me... no. I actually feel this way and live this way. I am independent and willing to be dependable so I would never stay somewhere solely based on money or laziness.. I cannot speak for all those other people. I can only speak on me and my experiences, which should go without saying.

i came here again because i just got off the phone with a cusotmer who was speaking for his wife and telling me that he understands why people divorce when the spouse has a life changing medical issue that changes the person. HE was telling me how he tells his kids, its hard sometimes, because she just isnt the same, its like going to school, but its not your school anymore. The beauty in the structure that is marriage probably held them together when he wanted to fall apart. But, it is the nature of his heart that allows him to honor the commitment. Divorce is an option. But that man chooses not to, he chooses to remain with her and grow with her. I have spoken to other patients who were not so fortunate, a head injury or hormone changes cause them to act other than themselves, sometimes abusive and ugly and they divorce- eventhough the person they married is in a medical hell...
ITs ugly out there yall... and before I marry, if I marry- I will find that depth, that love and feel content with that because no one is promised to be here, with me tomorrow despite any certificate.

It may be selfish for me to want to be loved honestly, it maybe selfish of me to want to love honestly... I guess Im selfish in your opinion. Thats perfectly fine with me

I dont feel that people in marriges are any less or more than any other type of relationship. I do feel that it is silly for young people to marry, simply because many times they havent had the space and room to grow as individuals and need more time to be selfish in terms of the relationships that they seek out (enjoying the company of people that make then happy) so that they can choose the right marriage partner.
I feel that marriage is like an actual and emotional business. Its is a platform to build family and wealth. like in any other business there are curruptions and successes. I feel that so much value is put on marriage that people forget to spend time on the steps before marriage to ensure its success. I think that if a couple relates successfully they will probably have a sucessful marriage. On the other hand, just because a couple is married does not mean that they relate well. An agreement to be codependent should have a high value on the happiness of the individual participants, because, why not?

 

[JewelleNY]

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.

I think the article is not talking about these types of situations either. It is basically saying that people should be together because they want to be and be honest with each other in the process. If those unmarried people are together for reasons outside of love than they are just as bad as the people who are together out of some sort of obligation, not much difference in my opinion. I guess different strokes for different folks, not everything works for everyone. I hear many are happy in marriage, that is good, and I hear of stories of cheating, abuse, and everything else that people who are not married experience. I really don't know if marriage can produce a different outcome between two people except financially. This is just my opinion and I still believe marriage can be a good thing

 

[JewelleNY]

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 find the article is saying to keep loving those you care about and don't take them for granted, appreciate them every day. I don't see what you are saying at all but I think it is all about perception. However, the author did not mention children here so I think it would be interestign to hear his actual views on relating to children.

 

[Bunny77]

I think the article is not talking about these types of situations either. It is basically saying that people should be together because they want to be and be honest with each other in the process. If those unmarried people are together for reasons outside of love than they are just as bad as the people who are together out of some sort of obligation, not much difference in my opinion. I guess different strokes for different folks, not everything works for everyone. I hear many are happy in marriage, that is good, and I hear of stories of cheating, abuse, and everything else that people who are not married experience. I really don't know if marriage can produce a different outcome between two people except financially. This is just my opinion and I still believe marriage can be a good thing

I was responding more to the general idea that unmarried couples have stronger relationships because they "choose" to be together each day versus being "forced" to by a vow... I've heard that in a general sense as a reason why such relationships are better/healthier, not just from the OSHO article.

I think we all agree with the general point though that people should build healthier relationships (whether married or not) and be willing to grow, change, develop and evolve. And I'm not saying that unmarried couples can't do it -- they can. I'm just disputing the general idea that married couples are boxed in by norms and tradition, while unmarried couples are "free," "evolving," and "real."

Married and unmarried couples together for the wrong reasons will have unhealthy, limited relationships, period. The fact that one is married and the other is not has nothing to do with the quality of the relationship.

 

[Strangefruittree]

I was responding more to the general idea that unmarried couples have stronger relationships because they "choose" to be together each day versus being "forced" to by a vow... I've heard that in a general sense as a reason why such relationships are better/healthier, not just from the OSHO article.

I think we all agree with the general point though that people should build healthier relationships (whether married or not) and be willing to grow, change, develop and evolve. And I'm not saying that unmarried couples can't do it -- they can. I'm just disputing the general idea that married couples are boxed in by norms and tradition, while unmarried couples are "free," "evolving," and "real."

Married and unmarried couples together for the wrong reasons will have unhealthy, limited relationships, period. The fact that one is married and the other is not has nothing to do with the quality of the relationship.

I agree, And the computer is forcing me to write extra other than I agree, lol...

 

[Strangefruittree]

And what I said was that the person can mean so much more.. and I still mean that... The person CAN mean so much more because we are not legally bound in anyway to be together....

I guess I selfish, sue me
Oh wait... we are not leagally bound... we all are choosing to have this conversation that I really, really appreciate... that is helping me grow as a person... You are not my sister my mother, my auntie... you are a person sharing your opinion... It means more to me that you took the time to address the words that I shared than it would if my mom or my sister did while I was growing up because, I had to be there. Now that I am not bound by things.... I feel more appreciative of encounters and maybe that is what shapes and molds my opinions, as well as my life experiences.

 

[JewelleNY]

I was responding more to the general idea that unmarried couples have stronger relationships because they "choose" to be together each day versus being "forced" to by a vow... I've heard that in a general sense as a reason why such relationships are better/healthier, not just from the OSHO article.

I think we all agree with the general point though that people should build healthier relationships (whether married or not) and be willing to grow, change, develop and evolve. And I'm not saying that unmarried couples can't do it -- they can. I'm just disputing the general idea that married couples are boxed in by norms and tradition, while unmarried couples are "free," "evolving," and "real."

Married and unmarried couples together for the wrong reasons will have unhealthy, limited relationships, period. The fact that one is married and the other is not has nothing to do with the quality of the relationship.

I totally agree

 

[TinyBlu]

It just sounds to me as if the author wants to justify being with "multiples" and hiding it under a cloak of new age, philosophical, psycho babble.

I personally take some issue with the dogmaticism of "marriage" and the whole "put it on paper" logic, but I am TOTALLY for the notions of commitment and monogamy...

Monogamy... I get the feeling that the author seems a little frightened of that. JMO.

 

[anon123]

I find the article is saying to keep loving those you care about and don't take them for granted, appreciate them every day. I don't see what you are saying at all but I think it is all about perception. However, the author did not mention children here so I think it would be interestign to hear his actual views on relating to children.

I don't find the article to be saying that. The article says marriage is "ugly". I don't need to twist his words to try to make his intentions sound different. He made it very plain, and I take him at his word. He didn't say, "no matter what your relationship status is, continue to appreciate the other person." That statement would have caused very little controversy, and it's a concept most agree with. He said, in short, marriage makes you stop appreciating a person, and the best way to appreciate a person is to not get married. In fact, the best way to appreciate a person is to not define a relationship at all.

In addition to his "I just made this up" definition of the word "relationship", I have a problem with how he characterizes the desire for something beyond fleeting "love". If that's all that love is to him, then it is definitely not want I want. I want reliability, dependability, a sense of continuity, and a foundation on which I can plan my future, both my own and that of children I hope to have. In addition to my own definition of love.

I guess me and OSHO have very different views on what is important in life.

 

[Bunny77]

I don't find the article to be saying that. The article says marriage is "ugly". I don't need to twist his words to try to make his intentions sound different. He made it very plain, and I take him at his word. He didn't say, "no matter what your relationship status is, continue to appreciate the other person." That statement would have caused very little controversy, and it's a concept most agree with. He said, in short, marriage makes you stop appreciating a person, and the best way to appreciate a person is to not get married. In fact, the best way to appreciate a person is to not define a relationship at all.

In addition to his "I just made this up" definition of the word "relationship", I have a problem with how he characterizes the desire for something beyond fleeting "love". If that's all that love is to him, then it is definitely not want I want. I want reliability, dependability, a sense of continuity, and a foundation on which I can plan my future, both my own and that of children I hope to have. In addition to my own definition of love.

I guess me and OSHO have very different views on what is important in life.

You know what else? I didn't know anything about this OSHO guy, but I guessed he was either a so-called "conscious" brotha OR a person who was into Indian philosophy, but usually twisted it for his own personal gain.

It was the latter. When FlowerHair posted that link, I just laughed. Like I said, SO typical... they aren't even original. It's like they have a guru vocabulary book and just plop a few words in a few sentences like Mad Libs, and voila... "Deep Thoughts!" "Enlightenment!"

 

[JewelleNY]

I don't find the article to be saying that. The article says marriage is "ugly". I don't need to twist his words to try to make his intentions sound different. He made it very plain, and I take him at his word. He didn't say, "no matter what your relationship status is, continue to appreciate the other person." That statement would have caused very little controversy, and it's a concept most agree with. He said, in short, marriage makes you stop appreciating a person, and the best way to appreciate a person is to not get married. In fact, the best way to appreciate a person is to not define a relationship at all.

In addition to his "I just made this up" definition of the word "relationship", I have a problem with how he characterizes the desire for something beyond fleeting "love". If that's all that love is to him, then it is definitely not want I want. I want reliability, dependability, a sense of continuity, and a foundation on which I can plan my future, both my own and that of children I hope to have. In addition to my own definition of love.

I guess me and OSHO have very different views on what is important in life.

I totally agree with this statement and I think it may be impossible for both "sides" to come together in this instance. I think most people want all of those things that you mentioned and I think he saying that marriage can often give people a false sense of security that these things will come to pass.
I will have to do soem research on the author but that is what I took from this piece.

 

[frizzy]

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.

I started to read the article again, but I really don't need to go further than this first paragraph. I totally disagree with everything stated. I don't think it needs explaining, just read it. It makes no sense.

Love is both a noun and a verb. Relationships are not the end, but they are a continuation. Some need constant grooming and care, while others can continue with no maintenance.

The only time love is not a relationship is when it is one-sided or delusional.

 

[blue_flower]

The article was interesting at first, but then it started to get boring. It just rambled on and on and I didn't get it. I think the point was made earlier in the article- which was interesting- but the rest is just repetitive, filler material.

 

[tinkat]

When I think of love, I don't think of a noun...i think of an emotion, s feeling, a sense of who u are....I might love something that is a noun...but love is still an emotion to me.