My girlfriends necklace

[Dan]

I have a question about who is responsible for suffering...and the answer I know is always "me". But I need help getting there. And can't think of any way to get there but via a story....


Let us say....

A guy (Joe) has a girlfriend (Sue). They are not married and both date other people, that is not a big deal. They deal with a little jealousy and insecurity, but are committed to dating other people so they work on it.

Girlfriend has a new necklace, a gift from Other Guy (Bill).

So, Joe finds he is upset when Sue wears the necklace around him. Sue says it just jewelry, and not a reminder of him (to her) but just nice looking.

Joe therefor has the problem He should work on his suffering, get over his attachment to what he thinks it is. Sue should make no change, but be willing to talk to Joe about his problem.

Right?

Now then, same scenario,but replace "necklace" with "hickeys from Other Guy". Same answer?

Warmly,
Dan

Dan


(Sorry for the odd context of my question)

[Tardy Eye of Common Courtesy]

Dan you started this discussion with some concerns. Has something changed ?If all parties are able to handle the intimacy between each other and are willing to give everyone the space they need to grow from the experiece...hopefully with as little human suffering as is humanlyly possible then go for it. Human beings are very fragile when it comes to matters of the heart. I am a wife , mother, and grandmother. I enjoy my monogomous relationship in fact i cherish it. No one is judging Sue here. Sue will be the one to decide whether she wants to continue with the relationships.

[Dan]

The concerns are the same - jealousy is not skillful. Having emotions controlled by others actions is not skillful. So how do you address your own feelings (jealousy, attachment to what Sue does/doesn't do) instead of addressing the actions of other people. We are never in control of other peoples actions. And love is the most uncontrollable of all!

[Tardy Eye of Common Courtesy]

The emotions you refer to are in constant flux. One thing we can be sure of is that things change. Love itself has many layers and levels and is a complex feeling, it often get mixed up with other emotions and can cause harm.I think it really depends on ones capacity as to how pure the love is. "love" will manifests itself in many forms, even in anger. When we open ourselves up and make ourselves vulnerable to others we take huge risks with our fragile hearts. It takes courage to love. There are always trust issues when we play in someone elses sandbox or invite them into ours. With gentle , tender lovings hearts there is a chance the trio will experience happines. I enjoyed listening to Ken's podcasts on the warrior series recently. There are some skillful suggestions in these lessons that are useful for cutting through the crap. Where is the necklace now?

Thanks Dan for opening this up!!

[Dan]

I'll keep an ear on Ken's podcast.

As it happens, Dan and Dawn are still happily married at 10 years; Dan and Karen have been bonded for 3 years; Karen and Chris, friends and lovers but not in love, are reaching 6 months. And it actually goes on and on. Everyone knows each other, is aware of the relationship with each other, and love shared is love multiplied.

Dan still finds when Chris gives Karen hickeys to kick in a habitual pattern of wanting to own Karen's heart and body for himself, but does not see this as healthy in any form, and has slowly breathed into and released the unskillful desire to cling to any aspect. Growth happens. It has nothing to do with sex and hickeys, and everything to do with love and the unlimited quality of love.

Interesting article for reference via Newsweek here -> http://www.newsweek.com/id/209164

[Dan]

This is actually very interesting to me, since I first posted on May 16th, to see what I feel about this now and how it changed. How I changed.

[Tardy Eye of Common Courtesy]

The article reminds me of some of the co -op/ community houses that started up in the late sixties and seventies.They were part of the political left at the time and many of the individuals became quite successful as they developed their potential.Living in the coop was cheap and effecient; providing everyone pulled their weight re the work load. These houses had to be managed efficiently. Collectives were also created to manage the food distribution, skills and resources were shared amoungst the group.This was not a religious cult. I think at the time it was more about ethical work and working ethically.Many of these folks were well educated, the reason they wanted an alternative lifestyle was to live a much different life to the one their parents bought into in the 50'. Many of the young men were draft dodgers from the US and were part of the antiestablishment movement here in Western Canada. Several community based coops and collectives later became large successful corporations. By creating a community of like minded folks allows for certain opportunities and ideas to flourish within he group. It makes sense. Most of the people in the early coops were single with no kids, as time progressed couples paired off and started families or found new partners outside the coop and moved on in their lives.Many of the Buddhist communities that developed around the same time used a similar model, spiritual heirarchy was an important commponent. Only the purest amoung the group were allowed to cook the meals.With the recession looming large in our minds it will be interesting to see how it all plays out. All the best with yours!