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.
If you are not in a relationship in order to be happy, what are you in the relationship for?
I'm not trying to make this about you specifically. I'm inquiring as to the idea of relationship you are talking about.
Its interesting to hear someone say "If a relationship isn't codependent, why have one?"
I understand what you're asking, and yet I can only respond from my own point of view. So I answered this from my point of view. Because I enjoy her and us.
If you are not in a relationship in order to be happy, what are you in the relationship for?
I'm not trying to make this about you specifically. I'm inquiring as to the idea of relationship you are talking about.
Its interesting to hear someone say "If a relationship isn't codependent, why have one?"
I understand what you're asking, and yet I can only respond from my own point of view. So I answered this from my point of view. Because I enjoy her and us.
Is there a need to make it more complex?
Yes, since codependent relationships are formed just the same way - "because we enjoy each other". You can enjoy her and "you guys" and remain just best friends can't you?
This might all sound pedantic, but to be honest I think it's something people don't question enough in life. It's also a topic I have a personal interest in. I've always being a very prudent and value-based guy when it came to relationships...yet at the end of the day, for all my spirituality and love for "romantic love"...the only thing that actually makes romantic relationships any different than the best of non-romantic relationships is sex. I can be with my best friend every day as a single person. There's only two things I can do with a with a woman that I can't do with a men : sex (well I'm not gay) and kids.
Sex can be a powerful form of expression. It shouldnt be pushed to the wayside as some impure or lesser activity. Romantic love, companionship, monogomy, these are important and virtuous aspects of human life.
Sex can be a powerful form of expression. It shouldnt be pushed to the wayside as some impure or lesser activity. Romantic love, companionship, monogomy, these are important and virtuous aspects of human life.
I'm not saying it's impure or lesser. As far as virtue is concerned, I don't agree. Not saying it's unvirtuous...but certainly not virtuous in any way.
Sex can be a powerful form of expression. It shouldnt be pushed to the wayside as some impure or lesser activity. Romantic love, companionship, monogomy, these are important and virtuous aspects of human life.
Come on, Tali. You know that isn't true. Don't dumb down the path and lower the barrier.
Sex can be a powerful form of expression. It shouldnt be pushed to the wayside as some impure or lesser activity. Romantic love, companionship, monogomy, these are important and virtuous aspects of human life.
Come on, Tali. You know that isn't true. Don't dumb down the path and lower the barrier.
Why can't sex be virtuous? I think it can be quite spiritual. It all depends on how it's handled.
Why can't sex be virtuous? I think it can be quite spiritual. It all depends on how it's handled.
How it's handled? Are you serious? Is there anyway to handle a crime to make it virtuous and spiritual? The only way is not to see it as a wrongdoing as in war where killing is for honor and country, and also in devil worship where Chucky cut you up in a rite of human sacrifice.
In buddhism aside from rumoured tantric practices, which are secret it is not considered as specified rite of practice. Of course mindfulness which is the ability to see things as they are can be practiced regardless of circumstance, sex or war.
If you are not in a relationship in order to be happy, what are you in the relationship for?
I'm not trying to make this about you specifically. I'm inquiring as to the idea of relationship you are talking about.
Its interesting to hear someone say "If a relationship isn't codependent, why have one?"
I understand what you're asking, and yet I can only respond from my own point of view. So I answered this from my point of view. Because I enjoy her and us.
Is there a need to make it more complex?
Yes, since codependent relationships are formed just the same way - "because we enjoy each other". You can enjoy her and "you guys" and remain just best friends can't you?
This might all sound pedantic, but to be honest I think it's something people don't question enough in life. It's also a topic I have a personal interest in. I've always being a very prudent and value-based guy when it came to relationships...yet at the end of the day, for all my spirituality and love for "romantic love"...the only thing that actually makes romantic relationships any different than the best of non-romantic relationships is sex. I can be with my best friend every day as a single person. There's only two things I can do with a with a woman that I can't do with a men : sex (well I'm not gay) and kids.
If you are not in a relationship in order to be happy, what are you in the relationship for?
I'm not trying to make this about you specifically. I'm inquiring as to the idea of relationship you are talking about.
Its interesting to hear someone say "If a relationship isn't codependent, why have one?"
I understand what you're asking, and yet I can only respond from my own point of view. So I answered this from my point of view. Because I enjoy her and us.
Is there a need to make it more complex?
Yes, since codependent relationships are formed just the same way - "because we enjoy each other". You can enjoy her and "you guys" and remain just best friends can't you?
This might all sound pedantic, but to be honest I think it's something people don't question enough in life. It's also a topic I have a personal interest in. I've always being a very prudent and value-based guy when it came to relationships...yet at the end of the day, for all my spirituality and love for "romantic love"...the only thing that actually makes romantic relationships any different than the best of non-romantic relationships is sex. I can be with my best friend every day as a single person. There's only two things I can do with a with a woman that I can't do with a men : sex (well I'm not gay) and kids.
Has seemed to me for a long while now, that most of the " rules " and guidelines - that is religious, legal, social and cultural norms and guidelines around relationships came in to being to protect the rights and best interests of children and other vulnerable individuals. Some of the best relationships in my life are and have been non - traditional in the sense of these norms ... some of them have involved sex, all of them have been based on friendship and mutually agreed needs and wants ( not always articulated in a formal sense )... committed relationships don't have to be co-dependant .... though the idea that every committed relationship will be for life is a co-dependant notion to my mind.
Mindful sex? If one is mindful, would one fornicate? If your parents told you to keep it in your pants and they didn't explain why? And then there were all these girls that made you all confused. And the culture was based on power sex and money? If you look at it that way.
At least having sex would uncover some of the reality. And you could assuredly see for yourself why one would not fornicate or else how to make the best of your life given your needs.
'To switch gears, here, for a minute, there are plenty of lamas who are married. They don't seem to be worried about their relationship being an obstacle to their practice or attainment of enlightenment. '
'Why can't sex be virtuous? I think it can be quite spiritual. It all depends on how it's handled.' IMO, a highly spiritual person would consider sex a waste of time & energy.
Well, 'course, they didn't even know each other! (sorry)
Do you think the same goes for laypeople as well or just monks? Also, are people entitled to decide for themselves whether or not sex is a waste of time and energy or should it just be forbidden?
Well, 'course, they didn't even know each other! (sorry)
Do you think the same goes for laypeople as well or just monks? Also, are people entitled to decide for themselves whether or not sex is a waste of time and energy or should it just be forbidden?
Many practitioners I have known describe finding renunciation of sexual activity /relationships as a natural part of their experience and others make the decision to take vows, mindful of this important aspect ... have never heard an offline practitioner state that sex is a waste of time and energy though
On a more serious note, sexual desire is one of the most primal drives. if you can observe that urge without giving in to it. I believe its highly beneficial.
On a more serious note, sexual desire is one of the most primal drives. if you can observe that urge without giving in to it. I believe its highly beneficial.
I am familiar with the term brahmacharini which refers to self-imposed celibacy for females, as has been explained to me it was common practice in Ancient India for a period of time, commonly in the 14 -21 year age group as a life stage to promote spiritual practice and aid focus on study and developing good life skills and foundation at that age. Have also heard the term brahmacharya used in relation to disciplining the use of and preserving sexual energy ... is this somewhere near the mark of what you refer to ShiftPlusOne?
Historically, yes, but it has just come to mean voluntary celibacy for spiritual growth. Correct me if I am wrong on that one. For example, Gandhi would sleep (literal sleep) with naked women in order to overcome sexual thoughts and desires. I don't want to derail yet another thread, so I'll shut up.
I'm not saying it's impure or lesser. As far as virtue is concerned, I don't agree. Not saying it's unvirtuous...but certainly not virtuous in any way.
Sex has such a bad perception in so many minds around here! Fornication, lack of virtue, waste of time and energy... incredible!
I suppose if the only picture one has of intercourse is a lustful man overpowering or taking advantage of a female, then it would be no wonder such a conclusion is present. I have to say that I don't consider that kind of intercourse to be sex, its closer to/is abuse. I wonder if some of the perceptions that view sex darkly have been veiled by their own lustful thoughts or by watching pornographic material.
Sexual union is just that, the union of opposing and different energies... and going into more detail wouldn't be helpful here. Mindful sex is not fueled by lust, as mindful eating is not fueled by craving.
Lust might arise, but it is dealt with like any other... be mindful, accept the sensation, let go, move on.
In a recent article in Tricylce Magazine, there is an interview with John Welwood, former director of the East/West psychology program at the California Institute of Integral Studies and current associate editor of the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology. He discusses at length the concept of "spiritual bypassing," where a person uses spiritual practice as an excuse to "avoid facing unresolved emotional issues, psychological wounds, and unfinished developmental tasks."
Specifically, he discusses western Buddhist sanghas and communities where people create distance and cultivate a lack of empathy toward others because they are unable to accept human needs for love, acceptance, companionship, community, and healthy bonds. It is natural for humans, both children and adults, to seek comfort and love from others. Healthy familial ties and productive relationships create a stronger sense of compassion and empathy toward others. Even monastic communities share a sense of brotherhood (or sisterhood) and the members therein develop strong bonds of companionship and love toward one-another.
There is nothing wrong with engaging in a healthy relationship, and for most people it is necessary for developing oneself and for strenghting one's resolve in the face of difficult challenges and emotional crises.
Some quotes from the article:
"So how do we reconcile the ideal of nonattachment with the need for human attachment?
Good Question. We need a larger perspective that can recognize and include two different tracks of human development--which we might call growing up and waking up [...] If we hold a perspective that includes the two developmental tracks, then we will not use our notions of absolute truth to belittle relative, personal feelings and needs for connection. Even though personal feelings and needs may have no solid or ultimate reality, shunting them aside is likely to cause major psychological problems."
"[Avoidant attachment] types tend to be dismissive of other people's needs because they're dismissive of their own needs.
Might this account for some of the relational problems in our sangha communities?
Definitely. It causes people to feel justified in not respecting each other's feelings and needs. Not surprisingly, "need" often becomes a dirty word in spiritual communities.
People don't feel free to say what they want?
Right. You don't say what you want because you don't want to be seen as needy. You're trying to be nonattached. But that is like unripe fruit trying to detach itself from a branch instead of receiving what it needs--which will allow it to naturally ripen and let go. When our spiritual practice is way ahead of our human development, we don't fully ripen."
All I can say is this: Great Post! How can you learn to love, to have compassion, to feel empathy, if you do not allow yourself to be in a relationship.
I'm not saying it's impure or lesser. As far as virtue is concerned, I don't agree. Not saying it's unvirtuous...but certainly not virtuous in any way.
Sex has such a bad perception in so many minds around here! Fornication, lack of virtue, waste of time and energy... incredible!
I suppose if the only picture one has of intercourse is a lustful man overpowering or taking advantage of a female, then it would be no wonder such a conclusion is present. I have to say that I don't consider that kind of intercourse to be sex, its closer to/is abuse. I wonder if some of the perceptions that view sex darkly have been veiled by their own lustful thoughts or by watching pornographic material.
Sexual union is just that, the union of opposing and different energies... and going into more detail wouldn't be helpful here. Mindful sex is not fueled by lust, as mindful eating is not fueled by craving.
Lust might arise, but it is dealt with like any other... be mindful, accept the sensation, let go, move on.
You are obviously not responding to my comment, since my view on sex is not good or bad. It's neutral. It's just another act, which can be many things really.
I disagree that mindful eating is not fueled by craving though. Mindfulness is the quality of facing the present action of "eating", not the making the decision to eat (that's base on the basic need to have food).
And you haven't really responded to why one would enter a non-codependent relationship, which was the point of my question (not sex).
Which actually, and I mean to offend no one here....seems to always happen. People seem to have this shame in admitting why exactly they choose to be in romantic relationships. Why they choose to move with someone. Why they choose to have kids. If this weren't a buddhist forum, that might be taboo...but I hope as buddhists everyone here knows best than to compartmentalize their lives like that.
You are obviously not responding to my comment, since my view on sex is not good or bad. It's neutral. It's just another act, which can be many things really.
I disagree that mindful eating is not fueled by craving though. Mindfulness is the quality of facing the present action of "eating", not the making the decision to eat (that's base on the basic need to have food).
And you haven't really responded to why one would enter a non-codependent relationship, which was the point of my question (not sex).
Which actually, and I mean to offend no one here....seems to always happen. People seem to have this shame in admitting why exactly they choose to be in romantic relationships. Why they choose to move with someone. Why they choose to have kids. If this weren't a buddhist forum, that might be taboo...but I hope as buddhists everyone here knows best than to compartmentalize their lives like that.
I have responded to this question with as direct of an answer as I can muster. I wonder why you consider the only form of relationship to be co-dependent! Would a sangha be a codependent engagement? With common view and common commitment...
You consider sex to be lacking in any virtue, which, with other comments I noticed, I then paraphrased as a negative view. I do agree with you, the act of sex is empty of any static qualities, like every other phenomena.
I don't think its shame, but perhaps is like describing color to the blind. It doesn't translate well into words, especially when you reject the simple notion that they are enjoyable. I wonder, have you been in any relationships? Did they go poorly? Are you young?
No worries, though, I am not offended! I'm just trying to help you see from my side of things because you seem genuinely curious.
I have responded to this question with as direct of an answer as I can muster. I wonder why you consider the only form of relationship to be co-dependent! Would a sangha be a codependent engagement? With common view and common commitment...
I don't consider the only form of relationship co-dependent. In fact, you could say I'm on the search (well, not really, I know it's not something you can look for out there) for a non co-dependent relationship.
You brought the term co-dependency onto the table, so all I'm asking really is what it means to you. Because I think my definition of co-dependency might be a little bit broader. I'm not talking about conscious co-dependency but of subconscious one too. Like...
I don't think its shame, but perhaps is like describing color to the blind. It doesn't translate well into words, especially when you reject the simple notion that they are enjoyable. I wonder, have you been in any relationships? Did they go poorly? Are you young?
I don't reject the notion they are enjoyable. That's a fact. But mindfulness isn't doing things just because they are enjoyable, but noticing the karmic repercussions and studying WHY we do what we do, and what is the desire behind our action. That's why I've asked before, what would be a skillful reason to enter a romantic relationship? Are you following my train of thought? I'm trying to zoom in as much as possible and aim for the fundamentals.
I have been in relationships, yes. I'm currently single, but I think I finally know what I want. But I don't know if it's feasible or if a monogamous committed romantic relationship will take me there.
Just so understand each other, as far as I'm concerned, 99.99% of all romantic relationships are co-dependent. I'm not talking about only those visibly unhealthy and obsessive relationships. Co-dependency is being in a relationship, because you have something I want. Be it a nice body, you calm me down, whatever.
No worries, though, I am not offended! I'm just trying to help you see from my side of things because you seem genuinely curious.
With warmth,
Matt
Sure. I guess it helps making this a little bit more personal. Let me ask in you in another way ... you've been in other relationships before right? Would you say those were co-dependent? Or better yet, what are good reasons to enter a relationship with someone?
I don't understand what you mean by "co-dependent." I "depend" upon the girl I am with for support, love, companionship, friendship, and even the challenge the relationship creates that leads understanding and insight. But I don't "depend" upon these things in any way moreso than others "depend" upon them from other sources. Everyone needs these things and they can be found in many places besides a committed monogomous relationship.
I didn't go looking for the girl I love. I was living my life, and she became a part of it through happenstance. We have endured many trials and learned much from one-another. I love her and love having her in my life, and she feels the same about me.
In regards to our finances and plans and aspirations, of course there is a sense mutual reliance. We share a life together. We depend upon one-another because we love one-another. I'm glad that she depends upon me for certain things, and she is happy to help me with what I need as well.
Sex is not a crime in Hell, shift. So, relax. Nobody is going to rip off your horns here or take away your pitch fork. If one is mindful, would one fornicate?
Yiming, I'm asking you again, are you SURE you didn't take a wrong turn on the internet and end up on a Buddhist site by mistake?
Buddha & Jesus didnt bother to have sex.
Whether or not Jesus had sex is very much open to debate. But we don't need to go into that here.
Inter - dependant seems a more accurate term to me
Yes, I'd say both: interdependent and dependent-arising. (Thanks for joining me in a brief respite from the debate over the evils vs. the blessings of sex. :rolleyes: )
I don't understand what you mean by "co-dependent." I "depend" upon the girl I am with for support, love, companionship, friendship, and even the challenge the relationship creates that leads understanding and insight. But I don't "depend" upon these things in any way moreso than others "depend" upon them from other sources. Everyone needs these things and they can be found in many places besides a committed monogomous relationship.
I didn't go looking for the girl I love. I was living my life, and she became a part of it through happenstance. We have endured many trials and learned much from one-another. I love her and love having her in my life, and she feels the same about me.
In regards to our finances and plans and aspirations, of course there is a sense mutual reliance. We share a life together. We depend upon one-another because we love one-another. I'm glad that she depends upon me for certain things, and she is happy to help me with what I need as well.
I'm using aMatt's definition of co-dependecy. Need in order to be happy. Now everyone might be quick to say they don't need their partner to be happy, but if they were truly content without having their partner in their life...why be with them then? Some need is being met by being in a relationship.
Also as far as depending on someone for support, love, companionship, friendship....one can have friends and have those needs met. I mean, WE are in a buddhist forum and buddhist monks will be the first to say they don't lack those things simply because they are celibate. Like you say you can find those in many places. But buddhism IS based on being as self-reliant and self-loving, self-supporting, self-companion, self-friend as possible. That's the whole basis of non-attachment. Not looking for an external source of happiness. And that's what I mean by co-dependence, using aMatt's definition.
Just to clarify, my posts are not a personal stance on any form of relationship per se, it's more a philosophical exercise trying to get to the bottom of things.
, "Inter - dependant seems a more accurate term to me"
Hi Andyrobyn,
can you explain how there is interdependence between myself and a guy in the UK who went on a shooting rampage and shot lots of innocent people at point blank range? (other than the fact that we're both sentient beings on the same planet)
I have been in codependent relationships, including a marriage.
Codependent relationships in a western sense are relationships where the two people rely on each other for a sense of self esteem and to validate their individual views. Typically there is one who is needy, and one who works to see those needs met. Its pretty well documented and described in the link below, perhaps investigate and ask new, more specific questions if they arise.
If you are concerned that one might happen, you could ask yourself a few questions, like "If this person was mad at me, would my self esteem be challenged?" and "Do I feel comfortable telling this person what my true needs and desires are?" and "Does this person, and do I, make sufficient room for each other in our conversations, observations and feelings?" and "Do their struggles and patterns upset my sense of compassion?" and "Do I want them to act differently?" and "Do I feel absorbed in this relationship?" and "Is this relationship in high gear, and could I slow it down to a reasonable speed?"
The wiki article is pretty descriptive, if it sounds like some of your perceptions, consider a great book by Melody Beattie - Codependent No More.
Its very common for people with low self esteem to view all relationships as co-dependent, or to be unable to consider how a sense of acceptance for ones own view can remain unrelated to a relationship.
A few good reasons to enter into a relationship with someone might be things like you find each other interesting, your views of the world similar to each other, you share a tenderness for each other, you appreciate each other's uniqueness etc...
, can you explain how there is interdependence between myself and a guy in the UK who went on a shooting rampage and shot lots of innocent people at point blank range? (other than the fact that we're both sentient beings on the same planet)
Because when you observed him and his actions, there was an initiation of a sense of empathy and/or disgust in you. How is he not your dearest brother, perhaps lost in the samsara?
@Talisman in general it explains how samsaric beings stay in samsara; which includes what may be considered interdependance between phenomena... but the whole point (in my understanding) is that each step is dependant on the prior step; the names come from the interdependant arising between steps (not between phenomena).
"everything is related", "we are all connected" isn't a logical conclusion of pratitya-samutpada "it will be easier for me to break this step" is closer to its meaning (either craving or ignorance).
Yiming, I'm asking you again, are you SURE you didn't take a wrong turn on the internet and end up on a Buddhist site by mistake?
No, I didn't take a wrong turn. You have taken a wrong turn and ended up as a Buddhist by mistake. If Buddhism is a corporate brand, I would sue you lot for trademark violation and stop the damage to the brand.
Comments
I understand what you're asking, and yet I can only respond from my own point of view. So I answered this from my point of view. Because I enjoy her and us.
Is there a need to make it more complex?
This might all sound pedantic, but to be honest I think it's something people don't question enough in life. It's also a topic I have a personal interest in. I've always being a very prudent and value-based guy when it came to relationships...yet at the end of the day, for all my spirituality and love for "romantic love"...the only thing that actually makes romantic relationships any different than the best of non-romantic relationships is sex. I can be with my best friend every day as a single person. There's only two things I can do with a with a woman that I can't do with a men : sex (well I'm not gay) and kids.
children and other vulnerable individuals.
Some of the best relationships in my life are and have been non - traditional in the sense of these norms ... some of them have involved sex, all of them have been based on friendship and mutually agreed needs and wants ( not always articulated in a formal sense )... committed relationships don't have to be co-dependant .... though the idea that every committed relationship will be for life is a co-dependant notion to my mind.
At least having sex would uncover some of the reality. And you could assuredly see for yourself why one would not fornicate or else how to make the best of your life given your needs.
Well, they should worry.
IMO, a highly spiritual person would consider sex a waste of time & energy.
(sorry)
Do you think the same goes for laypeople as well or just monks? Also, are people entitled to decide for themselves whether or not sex is a waste of time and energy or should it just be forbidden?
Many practitioners I have known describe finding renunciation of sexual activity /relationships as a natural part of their experience and others make the decision to take vows, mindful of this important aspect ... have never heard an offline practitioner state that sex is a waste of time and energy though
you dirty fella.
if you can observe that urge without giving in to it. I believe its highly
beneficial.
I suppose if the only picture one has of intercourse is a lustful man overpowering or taking advantage of a female, then it would be no wonder such a conclusion is present. I have to say that I don't consider that kind of intercourse to be sex, its closer to/is abuse. I wonder if some of the perceptions that view sex darkly have been veiled by their own lustful thoughts or by watching pornographic material.
Sexual union is just that, the union of opposing and different energies... and going into more detail wouldn't be helpful here. Mindful sex is not fueled by lust, as mindful eating is not fueled by craving.
Lust might arise, but it is dealt with like any other... be mindful, accept the sensation, let go, move on.
I disagree that mindful eating is not fueled by craving though. Mindfulness is the quality of facing the present action of "eating", not the making the decision to eat (that's base on the basic need to have food).
And you haven't really responded to why one would enter a non-codependent relationship, which was the point of my question (not sex).
Which actually, and I mean to offend no one here....seems to always happen. People seem to have this shame in admitting why exactly they choose to be in romantic relationships. Why they choose to move with someone. Why they choose to have kids. If this weren't a buddhist forum, that might be taboo...but I hope as buddhists everyone here knows best than to compartmentalize their lives like that.
You consider sex to be lacking in any virtue, which, with other comments I noticed, I then paraphrased as a negative view. I do agree with you, the act of sex is empty of any static qualities, like every other phenomena.
I don't think its shame, but perhaps is like describing color to the blind. It doesn't translate well into words, especially when you reject the simple notion that they are enjoyable. I wonder, have you been in any relationships? Did they go poorly? Are you young?
No worries, though, I am not offended! I'm just trying to help you see from my side of things because you seem genuinely curious.
With warmth,
Matt
You brought the term co-dependency onto the table, so all I'm asking really is what it means to you. Because I think my definition of co-dependency might be a little bit broader. I'm not talking about conscious co-dependency but of subconscious one too. Like... I don't reject the notion they are enjoyable. That's a fact. But mindfulness isn't doing things just because they are enjoyable, but noticing the karmic repercussions and studying WHY we do what we do, and what is the desire behind our action. That's why I've asked before, what would be a skillful reason to enter a romantic relationship? Are you following my train of thought? I'm trying to zoom in as much as possible and aim for the fundamentals.
I have been in relationships, yes. I'm currently single, but I think I finally know what I want. But I don't know if it's feasible or if a monogamous committed romantic relationship will take me there.
Just so understand each other, as far as I'm concerned, 99.99% of all romantic relationships are co-dependent. I'm not talking about only those visibly unhealthy and obsessive relationships. Co-dependency is being in a relationship, because you have something I want. Be it a nice body, you calm me down, whatever.
Sure. I guess it helps making this a little bit more personal. Let me ask in you in another way ... you've been in other relationships before right? Would you say those were co-dependent? Or better yet, what are good reasons to enter a relationship with someone?
I didn't go looking for the girl I love. I was living my life, and she became a part of it through happenstance. We have endured many trials and learned much from one-another. I love her and love having her in my life, and she feels the same about me.
In regards to our finances and plans and aspirations, of course there is a sense mutual reliance. We share a life together. We depend upon one-another because we love one-another. I'm glad that she depends upon me for certain things, and she is happy to help me with what I need as well.
Whether or not Jesus had sex is very much open to debate. But we don't need to go into that here. You mean, dependent-arising?
Also as far as depending on someone for support, love, companionship, friendship....one can have friends and have those needs met. I mean, WE are in a buddhist forum and buddhist monks will be the first to say they don't lack those things simply because they are celibate. Like you say you can find those in many places. But buddhism IS based on being as self-reliant and self-loving, self-supporting, self-companion, self-friend as possible. That's the whole basis of non-attachment. Not looking for an external source of happiness. And that's what I mean by co-dependence, using aMatt's definition.
Just to clarify, my posts are not a personal stance on any form of relationship per se, it's more a philosophical exercise trying to get to the bottom of things.
"Inter - dependant seems a more accurate term to me"
Hi Andyrobyn,
can you explain how there is interdependence between myself and a guy in the UK who went on a shooting rampage and shot lots of innocent people at point blank range? (other than the fact that we're both sentient beings on the same planet)
Codependent relationships in a western sense are relationships where the two people rely on each other for a sense of self esteem and to validate their individual views. Typically there is one who is needy, and one who works to see those needs met. Its pretty well documented and described in the link below, perhaps investigate and ask new, more specific questions if they arise.
If you are concerned that one might happen, you could ask yourself a few questions, like "If this person was mad at me, would my self esteem be challenged?" and "Do I feel comfortable telling this person what my true needs and desires are?" and "Does this person, and do I, make sufficient room for each other in our conversations, observations and feelings?" and "Do their struggles and patterns upset my sense of compassion?" and "Do I want them to act differently?" and "Do I feel absorbed in this relationship?" and "Is this relationship in high gear, and could I slow it down to a reasonable speed?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codependency
The wiki article is pretty descriptive, if it sounds like some of your perceptions, consider a great book by Melody Beattie - Codependent No More.
Its very common for people with low self esteem to view all relationships as co-dependent, or to be unable to consider how a sense of acceptance for ones own view can remain unrelated to a relationship.
A few good reasons to enter into a relationship with someone might be things like you find each other interesting, your views of the world similar to each other, you share a tenderness for each other, you appreciate each other's uniqueness etc...
What do you think?
With warmth,
Matt
.
can you explain further please? In my understanding dependent origination has very much to do with the interdependence of phenomena.
in general it explains how samsaric beings stay in samsara; which includes what may be considered interdependance between phenomena... but the whole point (in my understanding) is that each step is dependant on the prior step; the names come from the interdependant arising between steps (not between phenomena).
"everything is related", "we are all connected" isn't a logical conclusion of pratitya-samutpada
"it will be easier for me to break this step" is closer to its meaning (either craving or ignorance).