What Is Relationship?

[Guest username]

I fairly recently read a good book called, Deep Work by Cal Newport.  One lesson that relates to this week's video was that collaborative efforts can result in deeper contemplation and when done well.

That's the caveat, collaboration has to be done well!  I wanted to create this thread to attempt to make a deep, collaborative effort at serious contemplation.

 

I welcome you all to participate and STAY ON TOPIC.

 

I'll start off with a dictionary definition: " the way in which two or more concepts, objects, or people are connected, or the state of being connected."

Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=Relationship&rlz=1C1CHNY_enUS720US721&oq=Relationship&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60j69i61j69i60.2528j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

Some preliminary observations to expand on this and see where we can go with it:

- Relationships seem to require distinction 

-Relationships seem to be dualistic in nature

- Relationships are a connection between distinct entities 

-I wonder if relationships can exist without duality; I can't imagine that.

-To really understand what a relationship is we must understand what distinction is and what connection is.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Okay, I started it off, so feel free to pitch in. I'll be doing it on my own some more, but I want us to push each other deeper.

[LetTheNewDayBegin]

Why are you contemplating "relationship" as a concept? You're getting only the observations about concepts in general. Have a look:

- Concepts seem to require distinction 

- Concepts seem to be dualistic in nature

- Concepts are a connection between distinct entities

-To really understand what concepts are we must understand what distinction is and what connection is.

See?

Stop contemplating the finger and start contemplating what it points to.

[Loreena]

The true bond between two souls. Unconditional and unbreakable. 

[Guest username]

44 minutes ago, LetTheNewDayBegin said:

Why are you contemplating "relationship" as a concept? You're getting only the observations about concepts in general. Have a look:

- Concepts seem to require distinction 

- Concepts seem to be dualistic in nature

- Concepts are a connection between distinct entities

-To really understand what concepts are we must understand what distinction is and what connection is.

See?

Stop contemplating the finger and start contemplating what it points to.

How do I do that though? Could you elaborate?

[LetTheNewDayBegin]

@username  Learn from Loreena

[Guest username]

@LetTheNewDayBegin How is that better contemplation? I really don't see it. It just seems like emotional sentiment to me, not to be insulting. Not saying emotions are bad, but I don't really see how that answers anything. I can respect that as a perspective, but what else is it? Why is that a better approach than what I'm doing?

 

[Sevi]

• I can not think of existence of a relationship in non-duality.

 

• But can we talk about a relationship that oneness having with itself?

 

• In non-duality, could oneness raise its own awareness all by itself by just being? Or by just the relationship to itself?

-------------------------------------------------------

• So then,  could the major reason for duality be raising our consciousness? (Through relating the other)

Edited March 14, 2017 by Sevi

[Prabhaker]

@username

Relationship is a structure, and love is unstructured. So love relates, certainly, but never becomes a relationship. Love is a state of your being, not a relationship. There are loving people and there are unloving people. Unloving people pretend to be loving through the relationship. Loving people need not have any relationship – love is enough.

Relationship may be just out of fear, may not have anything to do with love. Relationship may be just a kind of security – financial or something else. The relationship is needed only because love is not there. Relationship is a substitute.

[JustinS]

@username Relationships seem to be like a mirror of how well we see ourselves. How healthy or unhealthy our relationships with others or objects may otherwise determine our own level of self awareness.

[Guest username]

1 hour ago, Sevi said:

• I can not think of existence of a relationship in non-duality.

 

• But can we talk about a relationship that oneness having with itself?

 

• In non-duality, could oneness raise its own awareness all by itself by just being? Or by just the relationship to itself?

-------------------------------------------------------

• So then,  could the major reason for duality be raising our consciousness? (Through relating the other)

How did you conclude the last thing for the "major reason for duality"?   I'm following your first three bullet points, but your last one just seems to be a hunch based on you questioning whether or not it's possible for the absolute to raise it's own awareness from being and the relationship it may have with itself.

 

@Prabhaker Do you think love and relationships need be mutually exclusive? That's what your comment seems to suggest.

 

Also that's a specific instance of what a relationship is. What about expanding the definition to more than relationships in a social sense, such a relationships between objects. Parallel lines have relationships with one another, as do points on a graph, or concepts.

Edited March 14, 2017 by username

[Guest username]

@JustinS Cool, so you're saying a property of a relationship, in which the self is a component, is indication of personal health and awareness. Correct me if I'm wrong.

But what is a relationship?

[JustinS]

@username Not much of a property but how literally we feel as a separate individual mind/body. Relationship is the indicator of our apparent separateness with God/Consciousness. Haha I have to contemplate some more on this. 

[Prabhaker]

7 minutes ago, username said:

Do you think love and relationships need be mutually exclusive? 

Love is never a relationship. Relationship is bound to be a bondage. In relationship either you have to surrender or the other has to surrender. The moment love becomes a relationship, it becomes a bondage, because there are expectations and there are demands and there are frustrations, and an effort from both sides to dominate. It becomes a struggle for power.

Two persons can be very loving together. The more loving they are, the less is the possibility of any relationship. The more loving they are, the more freedom exists between them. The more loving they are, the less is the possibility of any demand, any domination, any expectation.

14 minutes ago, username said:

What about expanding the definition

People who cannot love persons start loving money , car, house, animals --- relationship with humans is bound to fail sooner or later, they can't be possessed. 

[NorseMythology]

I think you raise relevant points here.

I have dedicated some thought to this in my journey, I will try not to get too philosophical unless someone is eager to understand for their personal benefit.

You say there must be some dinstinction, I would agree. From what I can discern, relationship is not merely a state of being, but a 'becoming' or 'coming into being' because of seperation, in contrast to the ideal of perfect unity.

I don't know what you mean by 'dualistic in nature'.

I don't think relationship necessarily requires two distinct entities. Why not? Well I think our journey in life is not only in relationship to 'others' but also to 'ourself' and our relationship to everything.

I will leave you to consider this nugget of wisdom by Nikola Tesla.

 

"Though free to think and act, we are held together, like the stars in the firmament, with ties inseparable. These ties cannot be seen, but we can feel them. I cut myself in the finger, and it pains me: this finger is a part of me. I see a friend hurt, and it hurts me, too: my friend and I are one. And now I see stricken down an enemy, a lump of matter which, of all the lumps of matter in the universe, I care least for, and it still grieves me. Does this not prove that each of us is only part of a whole?"

 

[Guest username]

8 minutes ago, JustinS said:

@username Not much of a property but how literally we feel as a separate individual mind/body. Relationship is the indicator of our apparent separateness with God/Consciousness. Haha I have to contemplate some more on this. 

I see, so you're saying that's not a property of a relationship, rather that's what a relationship is.

@Prabhaker I see. So what do you think a relationship is, exactly? 

8 minutes ago, Prabhaker said:

People who cannot love persons start loving money , car, house, animals --- relationship with humans is bound to fail sooner or later, they can't be possessed. 

Not quite sure where you're going with this. Could you elaborate?

 

8 minutes ago, NorseMythology said:

I think you raise relevant points here.

I have dedicated some thought to this in my journey, I will try not to get too philosophical unless someone is eager to understand for their personal benefit.

You say there must be some dinstinction, I would agree. From what I can discern, relationship is not merely a state of being, but a 'becoming' or 'coming into being' because of seperation, in contrast to the ideal of perfect unity.

I don't know what you mean by 'dualistic in nature'.

I don't think relationship necessarily requires two distinct entities. Why not? Well I think our journey in life is not only in relationship to 'others' but also to 'ourself' and our relationship to everything.

I will leave you to consider this nugget of wisdom by Nikola Tesla.

 

"Though free to think and act, we are held together, like the stars in the firmament, with ties inseparable. These ties cannot be seen, but we can feel them. I cut myself in the finger, and it pains me: this finger is a part of me. I see a friend hurt, and it hurts me, too: my friend and I are one. And now I see stricken down an enemy, a lump of matter which, of all the lumps of matter in the universe, I care least for, and it still grieves me. Does this not prove that each of us is only part of a whole?"

 

When I say dualistic in nature, I'm referring to dual as opposed to  non-dual. Non-duality is a big topic in this forum.  

I think it's interesting that you say it's a "'coming into being' because of seperation, in contrast to the ideal of perfect unity."   That's a strange paradox between relationships implying connection while simultaneously requiring some degree of separation by definition.

[Prabhaker]

5 minutes ago, username said:

 I see. So what do you think a relationship is, exactly? 

Relationship is a substitute of love. The relationship is needed only because love is not there. Relationship may be just a kind of security. It does not work – and you can see it everywhere. It only pretends to. People go on saying that everything is okay, everything is good, everything is going well. They go on smiling, they go on repressing their tears.

[Sevi]

@username actually last one is a completely different question I was posing. I shouldn't have put 'so then'.

 Actually this is getting too abstract which is very delightful but I would love to see more practical approach which could create more efficiency in our lifes.

[Guest username]

21 minutes ago, Sevi said:

@username actually last one is a completely different question I was posing. I shouldn't have put 'so then'.

 Actually this is getting too abstract which is very delightful but I would love to see more practical approach which could create more efficiency in our lifes.

This is about contemplation though. It's abstract by nature.

[Sevi]

@username  this will be a little off- topic question but how do you stay anchored? Cause I'm lost in this part:

2 hours ago, username said:

think it's interesting that you say it's a "'coming into being' because of seperation, in contrast to the ideal of perfect unity."   That's a strange paradox between relationships implying connection while simultaneously requiring some degree of separation by definition.

Could you  at least rephrase this in a more simple way, if you don't mind?

[Guest username]

@Sevi Whenever I hit a block in the road, I just think hard. I focus really, really hard. Sometimes I step away and process is subconsciously and come back.

 

In that quote, I was just noting how it's interesting that relationships are about connection but require , by definition, distinction or separateness.