Universal Love is not Exclusive
By Reza Ganjavi
Love is a powerful universal force and as such it is not exclusive. Human traditions have tried to box it up and devised systems to: a) provide a stable environment for reproduction (and continuity of the species) and b) give one a false sense of protection against psychological insecurity, inner insufficiency and weakness.
A friend posted on her Facebook that if a girl tells a guy that she has a boyfriend that’s enough to deter him.
I wrote: “Not necessarily at all in a world where in the US which is a conservative place millions have open relationships and all over the world many people go with more than one person because they discover love is not exclusive and it doesn't have to break an existing friendship/partnership/etc., if you become interested in another and he or she touches a different chord...
It's funny that even in some ultra-conservative states with heavy punishment for that people still do it. I am not promoting it - I'm just saying it's a reality in our world and tradition has tried to kill it by calling love exclusive but tradition only has one thing in mind: reproduction... but as humans, we’re more than reproduction machines…
One important element is a responsibility and at the core of that is to be in the present moment and have no psychological image of another.
Another important thing is trust in the sense that if I trust a woman that she’s intelligent, good, cares for her health and energy quality, if she decides to spend some time with another man, I don’t mind because I know the guy will not be a junkie who would pollute her and thereby my energy. So I respect her and don’t want her to do or not do something because she is owned by me – I don’t believe in ownership because people are not cows or houses or cars to be owned.
Some people think they have to run and tell every little thing. In the case above, if she wants to spend time with another I don’t care but I don’t necessarily want to know about it. The important thing to me is when we spend time together that she’s here in the moment and not somewhere else in her mind. That would be “cheating”.
I read that a song was written in the 70s when this topic was taboo “Torn between two lovers” and it became an instant hit because so many people could relate to it.
The “torn” part is because of the pressure of tradition. But if we step out and look at the topic afresh, perhaps there is a more creative way to go about it in which there is no conflict.
From the side of a person who knows about it (e.g., a boy who’s close with a girl who has a boyfriend and she likes both boys but the “boyfriend” doesn’t know about the second boy) there has to be an awareness and suspension of animalistic conditionings of possessiveness and all the ugly things that come with that, i.e., jealousy, anger, disappointment etc. – becoming aware and freedom from those habits is an essential part of growth as a human.
In some more advanced “open” relationships all parties know about it. That’s happening more often than we think. But the most common setting is a person who is in a ”relationship” who takes a detour – it doesn’t mean moving in with another person – could be a mere exchange of good feelings or touch for example – and it’s not necessary to run and confess. Not telling is not lying. And in some cultures like France, it’s totally acceptable because they understand love is not exclusive and just because you feel good with another person doesn’t mean you have to throw away and break the first relationship.
In South Korea going outside marriage was a crime till recently. Recently the law was revoked, and sales of condoms skyrocketed (LOL).
It’s good to be discrete and careful about who one mixes with not just because of health which is very important but also energetically.
Back to the topic, the most effective way of getting rid of a guy is to be very direct -- no excuses etc., because most guys are romantic fools and they're very bad at getting hints. But a direct statement of non-interest saves both the guy and the girl a lot of energy!“
Is there a right place for ego? I don't think so except when it comes to the body's........
I was wrong -- I said there is a right place for ego -- but that's not what I meant -- I meant there is a right place for images. Mind you, the ego is an image. But it's a psychological image. And I don't think there is a right place for psychological images at all. But practical images -- like your mind knows where your house is, is important. The brain uses images for efficient thinking, but it becomes detrimental when it's applied psychologically, including putting together an entity called "I" -- the ego, and giving it continuity.