Saturday, November 19, 2005

If You Could Choose....

Which would you choose in this lifetime?

a. Sex, passion... knowing that someday the flame would slowly dwindle...

-Or-

b. Eternal friendly love, knowing that it would last forever and on a more spiritual plane...

?

Do not let my adjectives sway you one way or the other. Please choose honestly.

27 comments:

RedBark said...

Hello Stacey,

I know that we discussed chatting tonight, but I invited some dancing friends over to watch a ballroom dancing video this evening. Sorry :(

I hope that there are some other blogger friends around tonight.

To answer the question:

First, this is a good example of the kind of false dichotomies that the mind is made up of. This is un-necessary suffering.

You do not have to choose. You can have both. Never the less it is interesting to look at the relative benifits of each and even at what further alternatives there are.

Type a. relationships will happen whether you want them to or not. They are great fun but also bring a lot of suffering from desire jealousy etc. Sex can become distacting and lead to shallowness.

Type b. relationships are also great. These inspire spiritual growth and deeper emotional conections. Less passion means more chance for real, intentional emotions

The two types are usually somewhat intermixed.

Perhaps a third type of love would be spiritual but not focused on a single person. Rather on a more generic representation of the whole universe.

jbmoore said...

Spiritual love from insight is probably universal and unconditional. The type of love Jesus and Buddha had for humanity. How they dealt with their bodily needs (the surface loves) we don't know because they've been put upopn a pedestal and worshipped.

Rob said...

Well MOST of the time I would go for the option of friendly, eternal love. However I am not always so smart....

Castor said...

Stacey,
A good question I would not answer.
Well, if you insist, I choose both.
Otherwise it would be b:
Why? You'll find out someday.

Pollux said...

My dear Stacey,
A definitely yes. I am a very good lover, I'm sure of that!

Nondualreality said...

Hi Stacey,

I have been running over the same kind of question in my mind myself over the past month. I mentioned in my blog if people would prefer the same perfect day or an eventful day where unexpected things happened. Most people told me they would rather the day where unexpected events occured.

So why do people cling so hard to try to control that which they possibly can't.

Even though sometimes I would say option b, I know in my heart that it is option a that the real me needs.

Solo Sonder said...

Stacy, it is a non-question. A true love is a blending of both. Best friend, lover, sympathetic ear, wound binder-upper...and much, much more, a relationship that lasts through the ages. It is only when we are not connected to our inner selves that we can even ask that question. It is a question formed by the ego to try to make the gratification of the desires of right now much more attractive than the traveling of like soul personalities through the ages together. It also indicates the ego's struggle for dominance through lack of understanding of it's true purpose.

A very slightly off-color joke here..that has stuck with me for many years. An old bull and a young bull were taking their ease under a tree at the he top of the hill in a pasture. The farmer let the herd of heifers into the field and the young bull got excited, prancing up and down and saying to the old bull, "We should rush right down there and get us one of them heifers." The old bull, who had been leaning against the tree, chewing on a straw, took it out of his mouth, looked the young bull over and said "Now sonny, don't be so eager to grab a little joy. We should just amble on down there and get all of them".

...Z

Steven said...

Hi Stacey,

I found your site through your comment in my blog, and I think it's great! I've been trying to find blogs about spiritual matters since I started my own, and the list you made of other spiritual blogs besides your own definitely helps :)

As for your question, I like to think that in the best relationships you can have both, with 'friendly love' being more of a long term factor in it, while the passion is mainly there in the beginning.

RedBark said...

Stacey,

I have not been able to get back to Angelman's site after my first visit. Can you still get there?

Sadiq M. Alam said...

Who will choose sex over divine love?

Sex is such a temporary thing, such an impermanent thing. Alas, if we could only knew Divine Love?

I don't know the full picture of Divine Love, but a little glimpse was enough for me. Blessings.

Sophia said...

Hi Beard,

I was able to get into Angelman's site just fine. Perhaps you're having trouble on your end?

Sophia said...

Hi Beard,

That's OK about Saturday night. I ended-up being a little preoccupied myself. It all works out!

I hope that you enjoyed the ballroom dancing video. It makes me want to get out some belly dancing videos. :)

Don't get me wrong, sex is a beautiful thing, but over time, when it's with the same person, it loses it's sizzle. I think true love happens when all the passion, desire and lust disappear yet you realize you wouldn't want to be with any other person.

But I do find that my favorite type of love is that which is shared with more than one person. A friendly love.

Sophia said...

Hi JB matie,

I sometimes wonder if Jesus felt love for a woman. Not just friendly love, either. Some have suggested Mary of Magdalene. In one story, at least, Buddha was married and had a child before he went off to try to become an ascetic.

Sophia said...

Rob,

Sometimes it's hard to get beyond those earthly desires. I understand!

Sophia said...

Hi Castor,

Hmmm.... always so mysterious.

Sophia said...

Pollux,

But your other half would beg to differ!

Sophia said...

Nondual,

Do you mean the real you need option a? Also, what do you mean by the "real" you? That might have some bearing on the answer to the first question.

Sophia said...

Zareba,

I love the joke! Instead of rushing to get just a little bit of joy, we should take our time and get as much joy as possible!

Sophia said...

Hi Steven,

Welcome aboard. Yes, I was pleased to find your blog the other day. I quickly linked to yours when I found you. I can't wait to see it blossom!

Sophia said...

Sadiq,

I'm with you!

VINO said...

Hi Stacey,

I wasn't online for a week due to some official work.

Its a nice question u asked here... I wouldn't deny sex or Eternal friendly love. I won't oppose the question either. Its normal and a good question. But the answer might change the very question.

The reason is we cannot deny our basic design. Our Instincts and Judgement make us unique in this world. We need sexual partner by our basic design. Additionally we are social animals. Our sexual self is is always alive right from birth to death. Its our choice to feed it or deny it.

LOVE and SEX are not two different channels (the exceptional and popular state is seeking sex, just for the sake of sex, which i am not talking about).

Lets take a old and very intimate couple.

Keeping them in mind I would say that SEX is a physical behaviour in a one on one relationship and not a constant state of mind as in Eternal friendly LOVE.

To explain it clearly I would say...

SEX and Eternal Love
1. One on One
2. Just one relationship (atleast at one point of time)

Just Eternal Love
1. One to many and Many to One.
2. Every relationship can fall under this

So these both answers are in two different territory and hard to compare.

-Vino.

Nondualreality said...

Hi Stacey,

I mean that part of me that wants to control the universe(Mr ego) would want b, becuase with eternal friendly love everything would be ok.
That is what the ego wants.

However my enlightened "let go" soul
knows that option a is the more exciting. What have we got to fear from a relationship like this. Why do we have to cling to the same dying flames. There is love all around.

Thats what I mean to the real me.
There is nothing to fear from new experiences, It is all an adventure.

Anonymous said...

I reject the false dichotomy inherent in this question.

I do not believe these two options are opposed, I believe they are complementary.

Why the assertion that passion must dwindle?

Why the assertion that friendship cannot?

I have seen friendships dwindle, and I have seen passion that lasts a lifetime.

This separation of passion and spirituality is based entirely on one's prejudice and has no basis in reality.

Just as the highest spirtual ideals can be expressed in the vilest of terms (think Inquisition), the so-called lower urges can be expressed in the most sacred of ways.

And it is not technique, but intent that is the measure of sanctity.

How can the joyous union of two loving people be a lower urge?

Not to mention that the survival of our species depends upon it!

The popular notion that sexuality must be overcome before one can be truly spiritual is slow motion genocide in God's name!

Sophia said...

Hi Anonymous,

I don't disagree with you. I was only asking the question with a "what if" perspective. :) You are more serious than I am. I'm a very silly girl. Nothing here to take seriously!

But yes. I do agree that it is possible that passion does not have to dwindle. When I say "passion", I mean lust for the same person. In my experiences, I have only noticed that the initial zeal of sex dies after a while. But really for me, sex is not the important thing. When that lust and passion die away, what's left is a very beautiful thing - friendship.

But, yes. Sometimes friendships do die. I've had several in my lifetime that I do regret have died away.

Your opinion is always welcome here. Glad to see your post. :)

Anonymous said...

thank you for your kind response to my overly serious comment.

sorry that i did not have a better sense of the context (as in you are a "very silly girl")

i do think that loaded questions such as these frame the discusion in negative ways. and i tire of seeing passion and joy rejected as worldy sins.

but it was most inappropriate of me not to get a better sense of who you are before jumping on my high horse...

i offer my sincere apology

the comments here demonstrate that many people do see past the "false dichotomy" and i regret not taking a more sensitive approach.

thank you for being gentle, and please know that by doing so you have demonstrated a level of wisdom not generally seen in "very silly girls"... or overly serious boys...

I will be back and look forward to becoming more familiar with the context.

Future comments will be less reactive and accompanied by my identity ~j~

P.S. I hope that you have much to be thankful for tomorrow and everyday!

Sophia said...

Hi ~j~,

Glad to see you've returned. I like your style. I was afraid you'd might not have time for "very silly girls". ;)

Do not be sorry for anything! What I want more than anything is for people to give their honest opinions when they comment here. And you did so in a very acceptable way.

I can probably explain the context in a little more detail for you. (Besides being a very silly girl, of course... which is only the tip of the iceburg.) You see, I don't see sex as being a negative thing. In fact, I can assure you I see it as a VERY positive thing. It's just that I value divine love more than sex. I definitely would not want for the world to stop having sex. We know the world has seen too many religious leaders who tried to take away the pleasures of life in order to gain some form of control over their followers.

I love Soul-love. I don't have to be married to someone to have Soul-love with them. I can have Soul-love with someone on the other side of the planet without ever having to connect bodies with them. I just can't describe it. :)

But more than that, I just think too much. You might see crazy little questions on this blog.

By the way, you can be as reactive as you want. You were very much the gentleman in the way you reacted.

I hope you have a lovely holiday tomorrow! I look forward to reading your link.

Chinna said...

you don't choose. you find . . .