tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2998998547000813414.post7912639597551747760..comments2023-12-08T01:00:57.240-08:00Comments on My Buddha is pink: Is one too many and a hundred not enough?Richard Harroldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02943119066949899198noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2998998547000813414.post-49712760055920893422012-05-10T20:30:40.601-07:002012-05-10T20:30:40.601-07:00I know you're right, but I also seek to strive...I know you're right, but I also seek to strive for finding that one guy. I'm not going to live in a tower until I find him, which necessarily means I will be with many men. And I must admit I do at times feel condescension toward those who live a polygamous or polyandrous life. That's my issue, not theirs. I believe I know what is right for me. It is arrogant of me to think I know what is right for them.Richard Harroldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02943119066949899198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2998998547000813414.post-56354329382796991342012-05-10T03:04:06.400-07:002012-05-10T03:04:06.400-07:00Hi Richard,
I would like to propose something...
...Hi Richard,<br /><br />I would like to propose something...<br /><br />I have found that conversations on polyamory/polygyny/polyandry and monogamy have often veered toward either defensive rationalisations of one over the other (i.e. This relationship model has these pros, That relationship model has these cons, This relationship model is more sophisticated for everyone in these ways, That relationship model is exploitative/oppressive/not-intimate-enough/too-demanding/etc. etc.).<br /><br />For me, it is important here to consider that both MultiplePartnerships and Monogamous Couplehood have clearly not worked for ALL people at ALL times throughout ALL cultures. Clearly, at various circumstances in our lives, we have chosen, consciously or otherwise, to relate to our partner or partners in varying configurations and with various motivations. <br /><br />Without becoming totally relativistic, I'd say that there is no need to judge ourselves for our previous histories of sex or sexuality or relationship configuration. Many of us regret histories of multiple partners, but many of us also regret remaining married to one person throughout our whole lives!<br /><br />And remember, of course, that there are men who have lots of partners in their lives, and have one core partner whom they love dearly, and who then sometimes leave that all behind as well, catalysing, no doubt, a tremendous amount of suffering for all he has left behind...<br /><br />Typically, we call these guys "bastards," but occasionally, one of them we call "Buddha."<br /><br />As you've put it "I am fully aware that my desire to be with someone – one man – to share what’s left of my life means that I remain bound to the cycle of birth, life, and death." But I disagree with you on your construction of what is skillful: "[being with a single partner] is how I believe a skillful lay person should live, even if you’re not getting laid much."<br /><br />I know that, without any prior sexual experience in my life, it would have been impossible to even REACH the point of single partnership. Using the idea of interdependency, this means that even if I am monogamous and with just one man, this partnership has been partially conditioned by a history of FULL EMBRACE of my non-monogamous history. Does that make sense?<br /><br />To herald one relationship model in a prescriptive way for all people is to deny the interdependency of ALL relationships, and that all configurations of any (like any phenomenon at all), is impermanent, and ultimately empty. Even the craving for FULL independence (i.e. without any residual craving for partnership left) is itself a form of suffering.shineniganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08481855943586378949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2998998547000813414.post-31817437672982264992012-02-04T12:55:05.357-08:002012-02-04T12:55:05.357-08:00I know, I can be kinda bad sometimes, huh? :P
I g...I know, I can be kinda bad sometimes, huh? :P<br /><br />I guess I should be more open to polygyny and polyandry, not as an option for myself, but more willing to accept it as an option for others. I guess I was being judgmental, although I do believe that those options are not suitable for me.Richard Harroldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02943119066949899198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2998998547000813414.post-31869490074423181912012-02-04T10:17:17.588-08:002012-02-04T10:17:17.588-08:00"I have to admit that I’ve met some monks tha..."I have to admit that I’ve met some monks that my initial reaction was to think, “How can I get this monk to disrobe?” And I mean that both metaphorically and literally."<br />My first reaction was, ? Then some laughter, and Finally a 'Bad, bad...'<br /><br />And as for people not really knowing much of what the Buddha taught - I agree. But it will be a perennial problem, I'm afraid. Even in the Buddha's time, as in the Simile of the Snake, some people will get a bit of the teaching and grasp them by the wrong end.<br /><br />And also regarding sensuality - agreed. How this plays out is different for each of us, maybe some people can have three partners and not ever want a fourth. And indeed in some cultures polyandry and polygyny do work. But, as with even monogamy, be careful. If multiple partnerships are based on growing love and mutual respect, all the better. But if they're based on chasing sensuality, you're in trouble.<br /><br />Beware the hedonic treadmill.Buddhist_philosopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14246929532585980356noreply@blogger.com