[Thanks to Pascal]
Most people will tell you that a "proper" monotonous, sorry, monogamic, relationship is the answer to loneliness. They pity people who live alone, and have no doubt at all that they are delusional when they claim they can be happy without a Significant Other.
I'm not saying either is Right or Wrong, because it's clear that there are very happy people as well as deeply unhappy and lonely people in both camps.
I am suspecting that the only real and final answer to loneliness may be philosophical, internal, and metaphysical.
21 comments:
Erm .... Why?
Or it could just be that since people are different, some can actually be happy alone while for others it doesn't work. Maybe someday society will allow people to live how they want without being hassled about it by other people.
Actually, this simply illustrates that sex and love aren't always the same. And, mostly, that the former doesn't imply the latter.
Way too many people only obsess about the former...
Well, Tiger Woods may have bedded countless babes, but did it make him happy?
I mean, even without accounting for the public hullaballo.
Quantity over quality? I think not. Poor choice.
Undoubtedly, sleeping around like a bulimic can be identical to a substance abuse: an illusory compensation for an inner perceived void.
But really, it's most normal to want to love someone in a special way. Who ever said it HAD to be monotonous and sorry? Only those who misconceive it.
Even you, proud asexual Eolake, are you ACTUALLY a loner? Or don't you thoroughly enjoy all that communication through your blog, and having familiar faces you regularly see?
And are you so CERTAIN that loving a woman is NOT for you, that it is just part of the Illusion?
Not that I criticize. But I always wonder whether chosen loneliness is really a choice, or... some inhibition from a traumatic past you need to Forgive? [Reading a fascinating book these days about parent/child relationships and their effect on the adult we become.]
We all have some skeletons in our closets rattling at night. Depression doesn't come (pardon the pun) out of the BLUE.
Just a lot of food for thought. Don't feel compelled to pig out! ;-)
I'm with Dave, different strokes for different folks. And I'll add, people are not immutable, so while today you might be happy alone, tomorrow you might want to be with someone. Then next week you might want to be alone again.
Substitute day/week for month/year/decade... Today's Western culture does not take into account how we change with time, or what our real needs as animals actually are.
Most people are living against their natural instincts, which makes them unhappy. When they follow their instincts, they'll feel better for a while until society finds out and chastises them, probably out of envy, hypocrisy and fear the status quo might crumble. Exhibit A: Tiger Woods.
PS: Hey Eo, what's with Pascal calling you asexual? I thought you were anything but...
PPS: Hey Pascal, don't be rude to our e-host :-)
"....it's clear that there are very happy people as well as deeply unhappy and lonely people in both camps."
Sometimes, I'm 'all of the above' in the same day... but I'd still rather be lonely than miserable! The nicest part of living alone is never having to say I'm sorry, and never having to listen to the reason for it. Couples living is probably for those who haven't yet quite reached the point of leaving the nest to fly on their own. The rest of us soar with the eagles, hoot with the owls, and have a hell of a good time wherever we are. The whole world is our home.
... there are very happy people as well as deeply unhappy and lonely people in both camps.
I am suspecting that the only real and final answer to loneliness may be philosophical, internal, and metaphysical.
Yes, it's a personal internal condition, as far as I can see. The essential point:
"Loneliness is the absence of others,
aloneness is the presence of yourself."
(Osho)
I know, it's a bit oversimplified like a caricature, but it points straight to the center:
If you are not rooted within yourself, then there is something like a big dark hole inside, and you are longing for someone else to fill it with meaning, like a beggar running around and crying "give me love!". If there is actually nobody, you feel lonely. If there is somebody else as a partner with the same inner condition, then both will feel betrayed in a way after short time, and lonely again, because neither of them can really give ...
I see many trying to fill this hole with sex, but then it is like junkfood: It may fill for the moment, but something essential is missing, and you are still not satisfied and still hungry for love. And/or they try to manipulate the partner, and she/he MUST behave according to your expectations, otherwise the partner is responsible for your unhappiness ... there is the root of jealousy, too, but that's an echo of your own inner dark hole. However you try in this way, it simply doesn't work, and both are deeply unhappy.
The more you are feeling your own presence, being centered within yourself, the more the dark hole is filled with yourself and vanishes ... you are more and more alone, all-one, complete in a way, and your being becomes overflowing - and you HAVE to give your love like a raining cloud, unconditionally, thankful that you are allowed to give.
And then it is in a way not really important, whether there is a partner or not, you simply give without expectation, and feel happy and satisfied with it, because love is flowing - and the paradox is: If you don't expect anything, existence will answer and give back in thousand ways (including a partner or not), because there is no separation ...
O.k., I know, it's still oversimplified.
My own experience: Whenever I was living together with a beloved one, both knowing about these basics, then it was a giving and learning, deeply satisfying, growing and flowering many years, on many levels including sex. And, like with any nourishing food, we had to find the appropriate rhythm of sharing our time with and without the partner - you can't eat all the time or you will vomit, you can't inhale constantly, you have to exhale, too.
And when something was fulfilled, we parted without bitterness in the end - with some deep emotional movements, but basically grateful for what we were able to give each other, going now some other way, and are still connected and communicating until today.
Life is rich, and you are a king, not a beggar. Try to connect to yourself.
(Wow, the captcha is "singly")
neeraj,
you already say it all. Bravo.
I can only chime in with my personal experience, that love may also exist over a distance and continue after sex. I am, in a way, still in a loving relationship with my ex, and I know she feels the same. We are no longer living together (she lives in Denmark now, I am in Italy) and we meet shortly at a yoga camp in Romania in August. The feelings we have for each other are still sweet, but we cannot live together. So we took the best of our relationship, and do not live together because that's was the worst part after the initial passion had faded.
It seems the heart and the soul can love far more, and wider and stronger, than the body can.
Thanks for sharing.
I'm a bit wondering why nobody else is answering, but it's o.k., too - I know it's kind of intimate.
neeraj,
are you hindu or am I guessing wrong?
Occasionally I miss a woman's touch, but the price of that is way too high: dealing with all the Human Emotion And Reaction BS.
I'm comfy as a pig in mud.
... am I guessing wrong?
Yes, definitely.
You are guessing right that the name "neeraj" is from Sanskrit - I was for some time with Osho, and I'm still grateful about that time. But that has nothing to do with Hinduism.
... as a pig in mud.
My sign in Chinese astrology is pig - I love to be that, too, including women ;-)
neeraj
oh well, I meant hindu in the widest sense. Osho is pretty Hindu in my book :-)
A
Sorry to imply some of you fine chaps might be "newbies", but those who have been on this blog long enough will recall the Captain's spontaneous "outing" as an asexual. No derogatory intention from my behalf, just pursuing an old discussion. :-)
I'm still not in agreement with the Captain over that claim of his (via the Course and DU) that "being madly in love is way overrated, and a lure in the path of finding Happiness, the Meaning of Life and 42". Or that theory that "ultimately, you need nobody else".
And I was always struck by the pleasure this self-described loner drew from all the -admittedly captivating- discussions on his blog about nudity, photography, life, the universe and everything.
Ah, I think my towel is finally dry. Don't panic, people, I'll be right back. Or left belly. We'll see. (Maybe front side and center?... HUT! HUT!)
Me, I took from DU the very wise principle of serenity in life, especially in disregarding all the trifle annoyances that so get under our skins. But I absolutely don't see a need for shunning romantic love.
Still a bachelor myself, but I "feel" that "She" is out there somewhere, and that we're probably Destined to meet.
The path to serenity is not an empty mind that is bothered by nothing. This [unburdening oneself of the pointless worries and anger] is just a step. The Ultimate Goal, I believe, is to See Love.
It has many aspects. I already know what it's like to love children as if they were your own. And yet, I plan to have some my own one day. :-) And, the full Love, both romantic and sexual, for that "one special person", is something that only frightens me (ever so slightly) because of the immensity of its potential. Like standing right in front of a radiant Sun. (Or the Ocean. :-)
Love, true love, is not a weakness. It is what makes us strong.
Okay, so at one point, it might be an incentive to sacrifice our own life for someone else. But is this really a weakness?
Nobody lives forever. "Be not afraid to die, only to not have lived".
This afternoon, I was baby-sitting. I tell you, just sitting there, with those adorable children being so... childish, I felt most alive.
I'm ALSO very good at "aloneness", I'm practically incapable of being bored when I'm alone. Always something interesting to think about. But Sartre was wrong: "Hell is the others"? Only if you preceive them that way. I've said it many times before: to me, the only true Hell comes from within us.
Monotony, my friends, is a state of mind.
Heaven and Hell, samely!
There's probably a lot more in your comments to read and respond to, but my bed is starting to make puppy eyes at me: "Aren't you sleepy, darling? Come join me."
And, I must confess, I feel irresistibly tempted right now.
Sorry, loyal PC, I have to go. But I'll come back. Tommorrow, same time, same place. OF COURSE I love you, baby. But we're NOT going to get married. ;-)
My parents wouldn't allow it. They want grandchildren, you know. :o)
Maybe you meant buddhist, also in the broadest sense?
"But I absolutely don't see a need for shunning romantic love."
No, nobody said that, except those who choose it for themself.
Two-ness is a very effective course of forgiveness lessons, if one uses it right.
It's just too strong medicine for me, I need a lighter touch.
Oh well as a hindu I tend to see buddhism as an offspring. The basic teachings about life and the universe are the same, although most forms of buddhism do away with the idea of the gods.
Of course if you ask ME I'll tell you that hinduism is the one and only all encompassing religion :-) but I guess that I am biased.
THe fun part of all this is that my ex just visited this page and told me "thank you for your honesty".
She did not realize that the last part of our living together was very unpleasant to me. I thought I had told her :-)
The things we don't know could fill a million universes.
Are you implying that we ignore more than what exists in the whole Universe? ;-)
But... we CAN'T be sure there's anything else to know or not know!!!
Where WILL you get the other 999,999 ones then? ;-P
Ignorance being absence of knowledge, it is most probably a fallacy to add up and estimate the ignorance of billions of people. Nothing times 6 billion humans is still zero! :-)
But I'll stop there, before I get monotonous.
"The intelligence of our political leaders in Lebanon reminds me of the Universe:
a constantly expanding void."
... I meant hindu in the widest sense. Osho is pretty Hindu in my book :-)
... Maybe you meant buddhist, also in the broadest sense?
I'm not sure what that means exactly, so I try to explain with my words:
Every spiritual tradition seems to me powerful in their beginning, being together with a living master, but over time with not so awakened successors doing their power trip it is converted into a hell of dogmatic imaginations, trying to convince you that you need exactly this and nothing else as an intermediary between you and your truth. A living real master tries to make you free, so he says for example:
"If you meet Buddha on your way, kill him!"
Or, I'd like to quote Osho:
"Don't be a Christian, be Christ,
don't be a Buddhist, be Buddha ..."
I don't see Osho as "pretty Hindu" or myself following any tradition, instead I see meditation as the basic key to dissolve any identification you think you are. And that's something you can be and radiate, but not express in words. Maybe the "negative" approach of Buddha calling it nirvana is the most you can do.
I admit, while being "on your way" some parts of any spiritual tradition may be helpful for some time, but you get stuck very easily. And then, if you are lucky to find a REAL master he will kick you out of that. Or you do it yourself, hopefully.
The things we don't know could fill a million universes.
When I feel I start somehow bragging about my knowledge, I remind myself:
I don't know what I don't know ...
ending with Lao-Tse:
"The Tao which can be said, is not the Tao ..."
Post a Comment