Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The Romantic Life
ajani_mgo
Veteran
Well I'm posting for the first time in ages again... Exams are coming up, and recently I've got fairly disillusioned with education in general, but away with it for now.
Recently I have been wondering about a certain group of people who I think in Singapore the correct term would be a "sarong party girl". They are a bunch of people who quite enjoy a life intoxicated with alcohol, partying and well, sex. The society would use the terms "scandalous" and "frivolous" for them.
Of course, such lives are not really Buddhist-precept-friendly, but I would quite like to understand their philosophy and determine if they are in fact misunderstood thinkers, "intellectuals who are mocked by conservative societies" as said by some, or well, just people who try to create a facade of thinking and introspection so that they can live their life of waste, while being able to "justify" it.
Thinking up till now, I would call these people Romantics, but I do remember, from my KI classes, my teacher said that the Romantics are not to be confused with well, just the people who go around all day without purpose and meaning just wasting their lifes with pure blab. I don't know, such people seem to be thinkers - to me at least, they think. I differentiate Romantics and pure-wasters by whether they do think or not. Given that I am no girl who can try to live such a lifestyle even, the most I can do is to speculate, and read from their writings to figure out the thoughts that lie beneath.
I ask myself "Who is an intellectual?". Well, I realise that it simply means anyone who thinks, but it is different from the usual thinking but more of a critical and curious one. Say, Foucault and maybe the Buddha are thinkers "rockon:; Darwin maybe; NewBuddhists; but how about, say, sarong party girls and likes of Hitler?
Personally I consider Hitler a thinker, but then he kind of grossly followed the wrong thinking paths and screwed up badly.
What does Buddhism say of Romanticism anyway? I do know that Commies would be against such a life of indulgence, though.
Recently I have been wondering about a certain group of people who I think in Singapore the correct term would be a "sarong party girl". They are a bunch of people who quite enjoy a life intoxicated with alcohol, partying and well, sex. The society would use the terms "scandalous" and "frivolous" for them.
Of course, such lives are not really Buddhist-precept-friendly, but I would quite like to understand their philosophy and determine if they are in fact misunderstood thinkers, "intellectuals who are mocked by conservative societies" as said by some, or well, just people who try to create a facade of thinking and introspection so that they can live their life of waste, while being able to "justify" it.
Thinking up till now, I would call these people Romantics, but I do remember, from my KI classes, my teacher said that the Romantics are not to be confused with well, just the people who go around all day without purpose and meaning just wasting their lifes with pure blab. I don't know, such people seem to be thinkers - to me at least, they think. I differentiate Romantics and pure-wasters by whether they do think or not. Given that I am no girl who can try to live such a lifestyle even, the most I can do is to speculate, and read from their writings to figure out the thoughts that lie beneath.
I ask myself "Who is an intellectual?". Well, I realise that it simply means anyone who thinks, but it is different from the usual thinking but more of a critical and curious one. Say, Foucault and maybe the Buddha are thinkers "rockon:; Darwin maybe; NewBuddhists; but how about, say, sarong party girls and likes of Hitler?
Personally I consider Hitler a thinker, but then he kind of grossly followed the wrong thinking paths and screwed up badly.
What does Buddhism say of Romanticism anyway? I do know that Commies would be against such a life of indulgence, though.
0
Comments
On your topic, you might like to consider what the world looks like to a person for whom life has no purpose outside their own pleasure and extremes of feeling. We can observe that in such cases the level of pleasure and sensory arousal has to be progressively increased, like a drug habit, because the person no longer gets the same 'kick' out of simpler pleasures. This becomes a spiral of indulgence.
You write of Romanticism and, if you mean the literary and philosophical movement of the 19th century, it was an exaggeration of the 18th century's 'sentimentalism' typified by many French, German and English writers, among whom I would class de Sade and Bernadin de Saint-Pierre. Goethe's early work fits in here but, eventually, he goes for Sturm und Drang and Romanticism as such is born. By the end of the century, you find people like Huysmans and Wilde who are preaching (and living) "Art for atr's sake". Typical of these is Rimbaud with his "reasoned unhinging of all the senses". The whole, degenerate and debauched fin de siecle stuff.
The world around us encourages consumption and personal pleasure above all other pursuits. It is far from surprising that there will be some who take this to extremes. The example of Conrad Black should give us all pause: he was supremely successful in terms of wealth and power but it wasn't enough... it was never enough..... it can never be enough.
This is why the Buddha urged us to reflect on the Second Noble Truth: to find the ways in which we are encouraging and nourishing precisely those root causes of our suffering and dissatisfaction. This does not mean that those causes are, in and of themselves, bad. It is our personal attitude to them and our 'grasping and aversion' that makes them so (just as Shakespeare says in Hamlet). Only when we have truly recognised the ignoble way we pursue can we come to the realisation that we can be freed from the constant round of dissatisfaction-satisfaction-dissatisfaction, pain-pleasure-pain that is the samsara merry-go-round.
Thich Nhat Hanh writes:
Of course, we can never be certain about other people's attachments, desires and aversions; we can, however, look at our own. It is our meditation practice that is the method by which we can do this work.
What's wrong with sex or partying? I realize the 'hard-liners' may say alcohol is always a no-no. Or is it the idea that once someone has heard of Buddhism, to engage in such behaviour is some kind of 'fall from grace'?
To engage in this form of behaviour, once you haver taken refuge is indeed, a "fall from Grace" but as always, a self-imposed regulatory one.... When one takes Refuge, and adheres to the five precepts, is when a little self-control and self discipline is required. A bit of self-regulation is commendable and goes a long way.
Those people sound a little like "Hungry Ghosts" to me....
Yet if one can overcome their attachment to desire and seek solace in just being, as true Romantics do, they surpass beyond the realm of humans into something greater.
What a fine line - in retrospect, humans are the fine line between well... What one would simplify to say "good" and "evil". Heh.
Not the "sarong party girl" (interesting term - i'll need to remember that one), but true romance. Does it have a place in the life of a Buddhist, or is this emptiness I feel in my heart just another sign that I am still too far from where I should be?
I want so much to give of myself, but in a safe environment. I want to be able to be vulnerable in a place where I will not immediately be hurt. I want to be able to love without fear of abuse.
Brigid, Federica, X-Rayman, anyone, is this too much to ask?
Now that I've officially graduated, I had thought I would have found the strength to leave, but I have not. I fear the unknown.
Help?
Deep down, I think this is what most people want. Human beings are naturally social animals and it is only natural for us to desire a close confidant in whom we can share ourselves with.
Well, you won't find me feeling sorry for being a hungry ghost. I enjoy indulgence just as much as any other teenager (perhaps more so). I have no shame in "falling from grace" on a daily basis.
The thing is, I view my sexuality as something almost completely divorced from my morality. Entirely so really. No different than the morality of my playing baseball. As long as I'm not hurting other people (baseball bats, sexual abuse...), then it is simply a non-issue for me.
First, please allow me to apologise for not naming you specifically in my previous post. As soon as I saw your UID I was ashamed that I did not directly solicit your input, my friend. Thank you for taking the time to reply.
I fear I may have miscommunicated, good Knight. I was not so concerned about sexuality as I was about the emotional intimacy that one so rarely finds - that same emotional intimacy that has been conspicuously absent from my 19 years of marriage. It is that of which I write.
I will admit that I, at times, crave the physical intimacy as well, but I see that as an extension and expression of the emotional intimacy that I crave. For me, sexuality is an expression of something deeper. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. I don't know. What I do know is that I am lonely, and I need, above all else, someone with whom I can be myself without fear of being attacked. I need to be able to cry without fear of ridicule. I need to be able to laugh and know that someone will laugh with me. I need a hug every once in a while from someone other than one of my children. Does any of this make sense?
Thanks.
-Q
I'm sorry, folks. I didn't mean to kill the discussion. I was just trying to ask a question. Really.
Am I losing it? Have I finally snapped?
Why is it so hard not to feel guilty about simply wanting to be loved?
Oh, you didn't kill it. I just got around to seeing the response. You don't need to feel guilty about wanting affection from someone. In fact, I would think there is something amiss with you if you didn't desire some kind of affection from somebody.
I should have it known though that I'm not the best consultant for one on emotional intimacy. It would sure be nice to get the physical intimacy part first and then worry about all the heavy stuff that inevitably follows. That's speaking for myself at least.
But if you desire the emotional intimacy so much, what do you think it is that holds you back?
Good Sir Knight,
The thing that holds me back is fear. I am afraid of being hurt again. I am afraid of being vulnerable and then being hurt, but that type of emotional intimacy requires that one be vulnerable. I long for a safe place to be vulnerable. I need a place where I can drop my guard without fear.
In a trusting, loving relationship, that should be the case. One should be able to look forward to returning home to his or her partner and take comfort in knowing that a haven of acceptance and support waits there. That relationship should be a nurturing place, where one goes to heal and to grow. That relationship should be a place where one is whole.
That, good sir Knight, is exactly what my marriage is not. I dread weekends. I dread returning to the house after work, but I return because of my children. I long to escape because I cannot relax even for a moment when I am here. I hardly sleep any more because of this.
Take care, my young friend, and guard your heart. I wish I knew at your age what I know now about Buddhism. My life would have been quite different. Above all else, follow the 8-fold path. Be true to yourself. That was my mistake. I gave in to pressures from others concerning what I should do.
Maybe I don't have that kind of longing because I don't know any better. I rather like the feeling of coming home after work or school everyday and just having time for myself, or calling up any number of friends. I suppose there is an element of selfishness to it all, but it certainly beats a roller coaster of emotions and the constant suspicion of whether I upset someone or made them happy. I guess that's not much help to you though.
Ok, so I'l be frank here. How many more good, healthy years can you expect out of life? 15? 20? Maybe 25? Now ask yourself the question....would you rather live only 10 of those years and enjoy them or would you rather live 20 and live in constant fear and discontent?
If your marriage is just not working, then I think you have every right to leave it. With as much civility as possible of course.
No, quite the opposite.
To be safe does not entail opening ourselves to vulnerability.
To be safe means comprehending that we are exactly - as everyone else - the ones who are in charge of our own thoughts, words and deeds.
To abdicate that responsibility is what makes us vulnerable. To accept that responsibility makes us unshakeable.
When people suffer it is because things are unfolding against their wishes. They experience feelings of inadequacy, loss of control and grief, because events have progressed in ways they did not wish them to.
To understand this, to step back, to permit others to enact their own desires, is an enormous show of strength. It means that we recognise the other person's vulnerability - (through their insistence, through their fear of loss of control) and we acknowledge it, permit it to unfold, and give them the right to respond in the way they know how. It may not be the best way in our eyes. Or even theirs. But it's all they know, it's all they have and it's all they know how to do.
Accepting that life is always going to blindside us - paradoxically - enables us to prepare.
To be ready for the actions of others, to experience the hurt, to cry, to rant and rave, to object and to protest. But to see that sometimes, we can win the fight with Egop, and at others, bow and retreat gracefully.
Either way, you have to rise above it and let it go.
Vulnerable?
No.
Compassionate?
Oh yes, very definitely.
With yourself as first base.
We are extremely vulnerable, as those of us who suffered from floods, etc. this year. It was a salutary reminder of how truly vulnerable we are. As Pascal said, we are reeds, but, he added, we are thinking reeds. We live in a universe that can crush us at any moment and understanding this is useful because we cannot then be puffed up and pride-filled.
Vulnerable we certainly are but victims we need not be.
Thanks, Fede. I find it important to make the distinction because there is a contemporary attitude that equates vulnerability with "weakness" - and deems this perceived "weakness" as being a bad thing.
In Transactional Analysis, we view Victim as the manipulative aspect of Vulnerability, an ego-position adopted in order to avoid intimacy and as an invitation to what Berne called "game playing".
From the point of view of Buddhist practice, our meditation may be seen as putting ourselves into a pose of deliberate vulnerability, within which we are both powerful (the authentic position avoiding the persecutory) and responsive (rather than rescuing). This is precisely what we see with the non-violent protests of the Mahatma and of the Burmese sangha: they deliberately embrace their vulnerability, knowing that the risk is that we shall be wounded and accepting it.
Go limp has been on my mind a lot because I'm fighting panic attacks lately (reading about the hell realms in the Daily Damma Drops didn't help).
Intentional, skillful vulnerability has many good uses and when it all gets to be too much and one is completely overwhelmed, go limp. Things are bound to change.
We are a couple of aging activists, aren't we, Boo? Both still believing that we can change the world by "going limp" - and WE CAN.
Just today, I got out and wore my duffel coat for the first time this year. It is the latest in a long line of duffel coats that I have owned, stretching back to my first, bought to go on the second Aldermarston March (is it really only 48 years ago?).
"We shall not,
we shall not,
we shall not be moved."
Power to the people, n'est-ce pas?
I am sorry to hear about the panic attacks. Very nasty and scary. I hope that you are finding your way through them. You are in my warmest thoughts.
Although the panic disorder is still with me, I do see a marked difference in the way I'm handling it, thanks to the Buddhadharma. Training the mind, that's what it's all about, and my training is in full swing, thanks to those attacks. Once again forced, by seemingly "unrelated circumstances", to train. Funny how our minds trick us and how we trick our minds.
Hey everyone!!
SimonthePilgrim my foot -
IT'S PADDINGTON BEAR!!
Boo, darling - Hang in there my sweet, and know that in every way, we're all here to support you, just as you have never shied away from wonderfully giving your strong support to others.
What's a wonderful family like this, for?
Hugs dearest Boo. XX