Vam.. i am sure you would agree that our idea of fairytale love is knocked right into our heads since childhood...our literature is full of it.. all the creative arts feed on it...plus all the marriages made in heaven crap you hear about... you grow up taking it for granted.. until you actually do fall into a relationship and reality hits you...and if you are aware of your sorroundings i guess you would reralise beforehand not to have unrealistic expectations...and after all said i think its different for everyone.. the poetic kinds who are in love with love rather than the person...the practical kinds who seek convinience and max. profit...i dont know wat category to put myself in...i give myself completely to whoever it is at the present...i dont have any expectations.....but it is when i feel my freedom is threatened that i completely withdraw...the only thing i have romantic illusions about is freedom..you can tell us wats yours...and i would also like to say that i agree with your point of view also..one can seek spiritual fulfilment with the one and is content(not misinterpreting it)... On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 10:03 AM, ashok tewari <[email protected]>wrote:
> It does, Slip, but does not indicate if the case was one of fairy tale > expectations from relationships in ' love,' to start with. > > > On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 5:00 AM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > >> All cultural disparity aside, Vam, the "imho" (in my humble opinion) >> clearly indicates the subjectivity in the statement. >> >> On Jun 25, 4:49 pm, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: >> > " Imho, being 'in love' is, as Arch says, a fairy tale." >> > >> > Wouldn't it be more accurate to state that of ' love,' as you or Arch >> > understand or mean it ! ? It would be a great service to let your >> > readers know that and, better still, to actually state what you >> > understand or what your ' love ' means to you, as in what it does to >> > you, how it affects you, what place it has in your hierarchy of >> > values ? >> > >> > For instance, if you've fallen for the fairy tale kind of love, you >> > will end up with disappointments appropriate to fairy tale kind of >> > love ! >> > >> > And, this isn't semantics. >> > >> > On Jun 25, 7:29 pm, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > I guess depending on how fast you want to travel it could be both! I' >> > > have been reluctant to reply to this thread but I do share some of >> > > your views PSK. Truth is that I have been married for close to 20 >> > > years now but I have not lived with my wife for clos to 5 years. We >> > > are both much happier than we were when we lived together. I have had >> > > a few long term relationships since and they were just too much for me >> > > personally. I have a GF now and she wants to pin me down, I feel >> > > smothered. We lived together for a while and I wound up excomunicating >> > > her from the solice of my abode. We are still 'together' but during >> > > the course of our 1 year relationship I have had (and still do have) a >> > > few different partners including her best friend who has shared our >> > > bed on different occasions. She want's monagamy until we GET MARRIED! >> > > Imagine that! I'm still married to the mother of my children and I >> > > don't see that changing. Polyamorous relationships ARE possible but it >> > > takes complete transparancy and a strong commitment to your >> > > 'significant' other. I, however transparent I may be, can only be >> > > commited to being a father and a good friend! I love her and all of >> > > the women who I have 'known' equally. The love that some women require >> > > I cannot and will not provide. Too emotional and without logic! Imho, >> > > being 'in love' is, as Arch says, a fairy tale. >> > >> > > On Jun 25, 5:33 am, "pol.science kid" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > > Thats the beauty isnt it..our own separatre roads..running parrallel >> to some >> > > > at some point departing ..reconnecting again...intersecting with >> some...or >> > > > is it more like a river... >> > >> > > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 12:09 PM, vamadevananda < >> [email protected]>wrote: >> > >> > > > > You have to take your own journey forward, your way, with your >> desires >> > > > > and ideas, and your suppositions or beliefs. That learning curve >> can >> > > > > hardly be progressed upon by wishing, opinionation or >> argumentation on >> > > > > a discussion forum. Make your choices, have the experience, and >> know >> > > > > and conclude for yourself ! >> > >> > > > > I've stated my conclusions, from my experience and understanding. >> > >> > > > > On Jun 25, 11:19 am, "pol.science kid" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > > > > and is it not possible to celebrate that oneness in the >> multitudes.. why >> > > > > > settle down.. i do not say.. have a string of affairs...wat i am >> saying >> > > > > here >> > > > > > is.. that completeness can come by sharing with more than one.. >> two does >> > > > > not >> > > > > > always have to form a single unit.. it can be three or four or >> > > > > watever...wat >> > > > > > we are told mostly.. there is the one for you...but that is not >> wat i >> > > > > want >> > > > > > to believe nor will i believe it.. it is circumstances that make >> us >> > > > > settle >> > > > > > for one... >> > >> > > > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 4:09 PM, vamadevananda < >> [email protected] >> > > > > >wrote: >> > >> > > > > > > The point, Kid, is in this oneness we see everywhere, as in >> apparent >> > > > > > > unit systems such as you and I, a pond or mountain, a pig and >> a tree, >> > > > > > > atom or organs. There is one - ness, unity, evident in each >> > > > > > > individuation, having a form and qualities, properties and >> aspects, >> > > > > > > character or personality ... individualised being. >> > >> > > > > > > The diversity of such ' ones ' is mind boggling. But we come >> to see >> > > > > > > their interconnections as we widen our scale of view, over >> space and >> > > > > > > time. And lo, we discover other ' units ' in biospheres, >> Himalayas, >> > > > > > > oceans, continents ... earth, solar systems, galaxies ... >> universe. >> > > > > > > The universe is the One ... Universe. >> > >> > > > > > > In the context of your post, ALL of us have problems with >> settling >> > > > > > > down with one, or as One. But since they are each in the same >> line of >> > > > > > > truth, some of us see the merit in each, try hard to retain in >> memory >> > > > > > > all the time, untill the segregating or dissipating forces in >> our >> > > > > > > psychic world relent and let our experience and understanding >> > > > > > > complete. >> > >> > > > > > > I have spoken of our higher nature and I am partial towards >> it. That's >> > > > > > > when we are comfortable with one, as one. Studies in clinical >> > > > > > > psychology and psychosomatics, yoga and meditation, confirm >> the >> > > > > > > wellness it offers. That leaves you free and uncluttered, >> happy and >> > > > > > > good. Even officials in the police department respect that. >> > >> > > > > > > At any point in time, not everybody is capable of it; some >> might not >> > > > > > > want it. And many are not aware of it, at least enough to >> choose >> > > > > > > it ! >> > >> > > > > > > On Jun 24, 2:36 am, "pol.science kid" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > > > > > > and your point is?? >> > >> > > > > > > > On Jun 23, 1:33 am, vamadevananda <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > > > > > > > > Do you know what a system ( closed or open ) is, Kid ? >> > >> > > > > > > > > The Universe is a system ( not sure if it closed or open >> ), in >> > > > > which >> > > > > > > > > everything else is included. It is One, quite apart from >> each being >> > > > > or >> > > > > > > > > all beings it includes, not excluding the ones now or yet >> > > > > unmanifest ! >> > >> > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 1:26 am, "pol.science kid" < >> [email protected]> >> > > > > wrote: >> > >> > > > > > > > > > I have a hard time believing when someone tells me that >> they have >> > > > > > > > > > found the one... what does it mean anyway..The one.. why >> does it >> > > > > > > thave >> > > > > > > > > > to be one...I believe that people can and do fall in >> love with >> > > > > more >> > > > > > > > > > than one person at the same time...and that is why i am >> opposed >> > > > > to >> > > > > > > > > > marriage as an institution...a promise to be with each >> other >> > > > > > > > > > forever!...I think open relationships are much >> better..there is >> > > > > no >> > > > > > > > > > emotional burden...Also sexual and emotional intimacy >> does not >> > > > > always >> > > > > > > > > > have to be in one single package.. i do not see adultery >> as >> > > > > something >> > > > > > > > > > horrible...and i really resented the way media made an >> example of >> > > > > > > > > > Tiger woods and his many affairs...so wat he slept with >> many >> > > > > women.. >> > > > > > > > > > its not like they didnt know who he was and that he was >> > > > > married...The >> > > > > > > > > > fact that religion penetrated and dictated every aspect >> of >> > > > > individual >> > > > > > > > > > lives still shows its effects...sex is something sacred >> and at >> > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > same time tabboed(although some countries have come to >> take >> > > > > liberal >> > > > > > > > > > views there are still many orthodox societies)... its a >> natural >> > > > > > > > > > instinct why make something else out of it...its like >> hunger..The >> > > > > > > more >> > > > > > > > > > you try to regulate it the more you pervert it...the >> fact that >> > > > > > > > > > teenagers are told to abstain should only be because of >> health >> > > > > > > reasons >> > > > > > > > > > not because premarital sex is a sin...It was because >> that >> > > > > religion >> > > > > > > > > > first dictated that homosexuality is immoral that >> subsequent >> > > > > legal >> > > > > > > > > > bans on it followed.. and it is still so ingrained in >> society >> > > > > that >> > > > > > > > > > most homosexuals have a hard life..only because of one >> aspect of >> > > > > > > their >> > > > > > > > > > individuality... As for monogamy i really dont think it >> is a >> > > > > > > universal >> > > > > > > > > > truth...i mean it was fine when the mortality rate was >> around 50 >> > > > > you >> > > > > > > > > > could stick around with one.. but things are changing... >> And with >> > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > society must evolve its institutions and the values >> related to >> > > > > these >> > > > > > > > > > institutions ... So after all this rambling all id like >> to say is >> > > > > > > that >> > > > > > > > > > the society should rethink its basic elements which it >> takes for >> > > > > > > > > > granted ...i dont mean to offend all you happily married >> people >> > > > > out >> > > > > > > > > > there.. just a private opinion.. and I'd like to know >> wat you all >> > > > > > > > > > think..- Hide quoted text - >> > >> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - >> > >> > > > > > -- >> > > > > > \--/ Peace >> > >> > > > -- >> > > > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text - >> > >> > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > -- > ASHOK TEWARI > -- \--/ Peace
