Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 05-25-2010, 12:08 AM
rpcrazy's Avatar
rpcrazy rpcrazy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 171
Default

I'm just gonna add a quick reply to the OP.

1. You're confusing concepts, which is why you're not actually getting any sort of resolution for the conflict you presented to yourself and to us.

2. The concept you're talking about is monasticism, which is greek. It was made by observations and categorization of those who chose to "renounce worldly pursuits". However the word doesn't truly apply to your argument because the context of the word's meaning and what you actually mean aren't parellel the hinduism concept you mean to give.

3. Moksha is the actually idea you meant to give. Actually, the dichotomy of moksha to more precise. Moksha is the liberation of the cycle of reincarnation. If you are in moksha, you are also in a variety of other "state of existences", including the one you're talking about which I think most relates to Sannyasa and Jnana. However with research you'll find none of these concepts align with the point you're trying to make.

Happiness as you define it in your writing, is a different type of "inner-happiness" you speak of when you talk about the conflict between relationships and happiness. In working with the happiness we're all talking about when we say, "i want to be happy", it's reasonable fact that you can both be completely happy by yourself, and still want to pursue relationships with other people without diminishing that happiness. I know this to be true in my own life, and other more evolved persons than myself. they live truthfully, and in that truth comes happiness. They practice or have practiced a severe filtering of their relationships, and don't really experience the normal drama caused in most relationships because the people they choose to be with are usually as evolved in their being as they are.

^^^My personal answer to your question^^^
__________________
---------------------------------------------------\\\
-"There hasn't been a person i've been with that I didn't love for 10 seconds to 10 years." David Duchovny
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-25-2010, 05:13 AM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Honestheart View Post
a question in SchrodingersCat 's first post to this thread "If you are already making yourself happy, why would you want to date someone else(in a poly or monogamous context)? "
That was DB's question, posed in response to my statement that you need to find happiness in yourself and not in your relationships.



I'm also going to touch on the "spiritual ideas" that are coming up in this thread.

In Buddhism (at least the form that I've studied), it's not love and happiness that you reject, it's not even desires. It's attachment to earthly desires. In other words, you reject allowing external circumstances (relationships, living arrangements, the government in power) to control your emotions.

The ultimate goal of Buddhism is to share enlightenment with everyone, out of a sense of love for everyone. It urges us not to love one person more than the other. But it does not do this by telling us to stop loving anyone, but rather to start loving everyone. To not see some people as friends, some as enemies, and some indifferently... but to see everyone as being worthy of compassion and love.
__________________
Gralson: my husband (works out of town).
Auto: my girlfriend (lives with her husband Zoffee).

The most dangerous phrase in the English language is "we've always done it this way."
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-25-2010, 06:46 AM
rolypoly's Avatar
rolypoly rolypoly is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariakas View Post
See, thats what i said, show a geek code, we can rework it into 1000 lines.
Yup.

Quote:
Great work roly, yours covers more of the variables I left out ...glad you enjoyed, apparently I wasnt the only one with a geek moment this morning.
Nope. Love programming! (pun intended)
__________________
My heart is too big to fit into one person.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-27-2010, 06:11 AM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,634
Default

to me loving others and allowing them to love me is like a reflection in a mirror, they reflect back to me everything I love about myself and things I don't... it makes me every grow and learn about myself and others.

"To me, the real question is, Why would anyone want to date me if I'm just using them to make myself happy?" good question Schrodingerscat! *ponder ponder ponder*
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-27-2010, 03:53 PM
Ariakas Ariakas is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,872
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpepper View Post
to me loving others and allowing them to love me is like a reflection in a mirror, they reflect back to me everything I love about myself and things I don't... it makes me every grow and learn about myself and others.

"To me, the real question is, Why would anyone want to date me if I'm just using them to make myself happy?" good question Schrodingerscat! *ponder ponder ponder*
Because ideally...ok maybe not ideally...you are both using each other for happiness and strength. If it is a one sided need than there could be problems if not discussed.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-27-2010, 06:50 PM
Derbylicious's Avatar
Derbylicious Derbylicious is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 1,603
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariakas View Post
Because ideally...ok maybe not ideally...you are both using each other for happiness and strength. If it is a one sided need than there could be problems if not discussed.
That's what I was going to say. Maybe using someone in pursuit of your own happiness is ok if it's a mutual using.
__________________
Everything will be ok in the end. If it's not ok it's not the end.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-27-2010, 10:51 PM
whirlingdervish's Avatar
whirlingdervish whirlingdervish is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 13
Default

I've considered this issue myself; notably lately while trying to make sense of where my Buddhist practice meets my love life. I think for me I decided the point is to move from need (usually based on insecurity and such) to enjoyment (which tends to be more egalitarian, compassionate, and mutually beneficial). Sort of the whole notion of affect and intention deciding whether something is poison or practice. But maybe that's just me.
__________________
you can't stop the waves but you can learn to surf
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-30-2010, 07:06 AM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariakas View Post
Because ideally...ok maybe not ideally...you are both using each other for happiness and strength. If it is a one sided need than there could be problems if not discussed.
This type of thing came up in a previous discussion about casual sex. That if both people are using one another for sexual gratification, then neither it's ok, because no one is being taken advantage of against their will.

I'm not sure how much I can extend my belief of that to emotional using.

Part of the reason it seems possible to use each other for sex is that in so doing, you remove your emotional attachment and make it a purely physical arrangement. But if you're using each other for happiness, that seems quite the opposite.

My biggest problem with using someone for happiness and strength is the implication that you don't have them yourself, that you need to pull them from the other person. And that's a burdon to place on someone you supposedly love.

Part of my goal in my marriage is to relieve, as much as possible, burdons from my husband -- not add to them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by whirlingdervish View Post
I think for me I decided the point is to move from need (usually based on insecurity and such) to enjoyment (which tends to be more egalitarian, compassionate, and mutually beneficial).
*thumbs up* this is awesome!
__________________
Gralson: my husband (works out of town).
Auto: my girlfriend (lives with her husband Zoffee).

The most dangerous phrase in the English language is "we've always done it this way."
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-30-2010, 06:14 PM
Zanie's Avatar
Zanie Zanie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14
Default

I've often had the same reaction myself.

If I'm some completely self-sufficient island, why would I care about connecting with others, especially others who may not be as "whole" as I am myself?

Actually, I have always parsed statements like "you must be whole unto yourself before you seek out relationships with others" as some kind of (probably unattainable) standard of mental health. A "job requirement" that very few actual human beings fit.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-30-2010, 08:44 PM
GroundedSpirit GroundedSpirit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New England USA
Posts: 1,231
Default

Have you ever eaten dinner and been sufficiently full to walk away - but ordered desert anyway and enjoyed every delicious bite ?



GS
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
dating, happiness

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:37 AM.