Great analogy mrteacup re: the movie production akin to a Wedding day. So for an Integral Wedding, only Integralites can be present otherwise the ‘storyline’ will go over the supporters heads? The ideal ‘production’ would be a layered performance if all attendees were to be satisfied. Does it really matter whether the audience is getting the Integral nature?

What is the marriage all about? Keeping the audience entertained or the Bride and Groom’s ritual? Does the obligational aspect of weddings indicate an Amber Shadow? Does there need to be an audience and what is the audience’s purpose? To witness the commitment? To hold the space for the commitment makers?


…modern media-tuned weddings are to romantic love what watching pornography by yourself is to real, in-the-flesh sex - a second-hand representation that hollows out what it attempts to symbolize.- mrteacup

Brilliant! However, just because pornography exists doesn’t mean you should never have sex. Just because cheesy, shallow, inauthentic weddings are around doesn’t mean, marriage should never occur.


“Rituals are what bind the community together.” Celebrate the New Year, the seasons, dates of birth, days of remembrance (war beginning, end or remembering national 'heroes' ), funerals. What comes to mind is how Ken talks about translation vs transformation and how 90% of the time we’re translating and the goal is to be which ever stage of development you’re at, but translated to a healthy expression of it and a healthy expression of it involves it being a balanced 4 quadrant deal. An good dose of ‘I, We and It’ in focus and living. Although not limited to, rituals encourage the ‘We’ expression bigger than the immediate family. Maybe it’s a massive hallucination, but I like New Years when I picture a large portion of the world celebrating together within a 24 hour period. What does New Years mean? Is it anything of substance? Probably not, but the big feeling of ‘We’ feels nice :)

Weddings are just another ritual with hopefully a bit more substance than NYE.


What role does Marriage play in the Bodhisattva vow? Would a commitment to one person be of value to assisting all sentient beings?


An Integral Wedding would have to be a “4 quadrant affair”? (I’m still very raw at the fleshing out of the quadrants/quadrivia deal so PLEASE make any additions or modifications if I get off track)

The Bride or Groom
UL
To me marriage is bigger than ‘Love’ in an emotional sense.
???????????
A commitment to a relationship? Harmonising communion and agency?? To me this is where the Bodhisattva vow and how it relates may fit in?

LL
The bond: mutual resonance of the Bride and Groom and the mutual commitment they partake in.
The audience in support of the celebration/commitment/performance and whatever storyline they perceive at their altitude.
OR it’s just another event to celebrate life with without too much more meaning

UR
Gets frocked up or suited up. Why? So the woman gets an excuse to look the most stunning she will in her entire life? (not that she ever needs as excuse)
The participation in a ritual that symbolises a commitment

LR
Transition day from Singles to Married



I struggled with that one… How does the UR correlate to the UL? Through the ritual?



The quadrivia of the event
UL
The ‘storyline’ perceived by the participants and the audience.
What storyline? The symbolism of the ritual. The commitment and its celebration.
What commitment? That’s what I’m struggling with!
Or maybe it’s just a party to celebrate life, love and some great people who want to dress up?


LL
Who’s invited and the ‘we’ that is created amongst that group
The understood symbolism of the ritual.


UR
The couple’s exchange of rings or the ritual of choice that may or may not be associated with a spiritual tradition


LR:
Location: church, beach, Vegas
The Wedding industry
The laws that bind and influence a marriage



I did this to discover the missing links in my perception.... there are many. There are so much to Weddings and most of our reference points are from Amber or Orange relationships/marriages so it's easy to find the short comings of other examples but I find myself not giving the Integral 'solution' as it needs to come back to the meaning the participant gives it maybe?

A few thoughts :)

---

A clever ironic quote is best here... instead I'll smile :)

Brilliant! However, just because pornography exists doesn’t mean you should never have sex. Just because cheesy, shallow, inauthentic weddings are around doesn’t mean, marriage should never occur.

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that. Plenty of people reject the fakeness of Disney World and Las Vegas, and instead choosing more "authentic" destinations, far from the tour buses and shopping malls, in an effort to have a more authentic experience. But this always fails, because the question of "authentic vs. inauthentic" is already the perspective of the movie director! Not only is this question not the solution, it is actually the cause of the inauthenticity, and the more we try to distance ourselves from the  "inauthentic" experiences, the more deeply into this illusory hyperreality of falseness we go.

The problem stems from equating standardization with inauthenticity. In fact, the most authentic weddings in the world are in pre-modern cultures where each wedding is basically identical. The proliferation of individualized, customized weddings is a hallmark of our post-modern, artificial, capitalist/consumerist mentality. In effect, what the "authentic tourism" people (or "authentic wedding" people) do is pave the way for the commercialization and commodification of experience. By naively rejecting "consumerism" and embracing "non-consumerism", we are actually participating in and enabling consumerism by pioneering new "non-consumer" goods and services to be bought and sold. For example, the organic food co-ops of the 80s and 90s were a rejection of generic supermarket consumerism and profit-driven business, emphasizing environmental consciousness, ethical living and community, which created the possibility for Whole Foods, a national chain of organic "co-ops" that you can buy and sell shares of on the stock exchange. Many of the traditional organic co-ops accuse Whole Foods of co-opting their ideals, but aren't they the one's who made it possible to begin with?

Isn't the slogan "Organic co-ops are better than supermarkets! Authentic is better than Inauthentic!" basically a marketing slogan? "Buy our stuff! Now with 25% more authenticity than the competition! And half the consumerism of regular brands!" Is it not the case that the culture of "authentic living" is in reality the Research and Development department for global capitalism?

As far as I can tell, there is no escaping from it. How did we get here? You'll notice that I have been using the metaphor of weddings as a movie production, but I have never been anywhere near a movie set, never had anything remotely close to a first-hand experience of making a movie. My guess is that almost everyone reading this hasn't either, and yet everyone knows what I'm talking about. This second-hand experience has been given to us through the media, which we have been saturated with our entire lives.

This is obvious, but what is less obvious is that the possibility to reject the media is itself a creation of the media. Imagine that I am in a prison, but one day I discover a hallway that contains a bright neon sign that says "Prison Escape: This way -->", pointing to a door. Elated at my discovery, I open the door and run to freedom. Have I really escaped? Or is it more likely that I have opened the door to another, deeper part of the prison that is, in reality, more confining because now, not only is my body imprisoned, but my mind is too because I believe I am free?

I agree that that sector of the market is booming and my partner can go on all day about 'authentic tourism', getting off the beaten track. It's just like using the word 'Spiritual' as a descriptive term. Spiritual work is working in an orphanage in Thailand whereas being a secretary for a Corporate giant isn't described at that although Spirit is everywhere as everything.

Isn't that drive for a Green authenticity just a drive for more substance but they are doing so in an outwardly anti-materialistic way unable to see their hypocracy (one of the short comings of Green). So therefore Integral remedies that contradiction and integrates the drive for substance and depth and the time and place for material stuff.


Upon thinking about the word 'authenticity' I wondered:

What is being portrayed i.e. UL: whatever the ritual is to the participants/the commitment?

Who knows if the cheesy weddings are authentic as the only people to judge that are the participants (not even the director. It's the actors) If no one was watching, would they do the wedding differently?

Due to the connotations of the word authenticity. Maybe 'congruent' is more appropriate. There is no point in judging authenticity if it isn't clear what the wedding is really all about and the statement and meaning given to what the wedding is all about I would think is different at each Stage of development. It's then the participants opportunity to enjoy a ritual that is meaningful to them.

I'm not educated in Buddhist teachings so I'm really keen to hear people's perspectives on this. What place does Marriage or the relationship of 2 people have in the Bodhisattva vow?

---

A clever ironic quote is best here... instead I'll smile :)

You know,  the title of this thread "Integral weddings" is strange to me. Why?

I am not so sure that "Integral" and "Weddings" even go together.  In an advanced, integral society, I would venture to say that Weddings will have gone the way of the dinosaur.

Relationships will still exist, but no third party involvement. And instead of relationships being about the two individuals, using each other, and seeing the other as an "accessory" like many today are,  I see the relationship itself being the center and focus, not the ego. No vows or promises, just an understanding to honor and enjoy the attraction and "magic" of what is occuring between two individuals. With the understanding that we live in a transient world where everything changes, any sort of " forever" or "eternity" line just won't seem appropriate. If it is time for the relationship to end or change form, so be it.  Even though the relationship is less ego based, more freedom and support will be given to each other in recognition of each's own desires, growth and developement. 

I do think there are relationship "skills" such as communication and empathy, that could increase or decrease the duration of that relationship. And, of course, some relationships can be deeper than others( Operating on many levels or just one).

Schalk's line of 

"We do not know love. Men know their dicks and women know the bank and their standing in the community"

is certainly true for a good percentage of the population.  100 years from now this may still be true to a degree but hopefully there will be access to higher perspectives where "Love" in it's purer, unselfish form, is felt and expressed, and supercedes any lower form. 

One could say, even in a second or third tier society,  individuals will continue to evolve through first tier perspectives and therefore could want a marriage similar to todays.  But I would counter that evolution through the levels will probably move faster than it does today.  Teal could be reached by adolescence in years to come.

So, to answer the question of what an integral wedding would look like...I say there is a good chance it won't even exist.

Hi Kaspan,

 

There was a time when i was seeking a deeper understanding of the issues surrounding marriage, being no longer content with the conventional wisdom on the subject offered up by the surrounding culture. Or put more simply i wanted to know what this ‘relationship business’ looked like from an inner perspective. The answer to this inquiry came in the form of an image, which i'll try to describe, with the caveat that the description is not the image.

 

Imagine if you will a scene where an individual human monad is represented by a speck of light. This speck has not only motion but direction. It's going somewhere; it's on a path, which i guess one could say is generated by its own light. And if the attention that's at the epicenter of this monad is directed outwardly instead of inwardly it may notice other similar points of light also in motion along a similar trajectory. It can also happen that they are in some sort of telepathic rapport. And noticing the similarity of their paths they have the option of a sort of mutual intertwining. By way of crude analogy i suppose the analogous image that best fits is two wires that are twisted together -not quite like a chain-link fence but more like the stuff used to enclose a chicken coop.

 

Then stepping back from this more intimate inter-twining, it was possible to observe that at some point an un-twining would take place, where each would go separate ways with an option to engage or intertwine with another. Stepping back even further all these points of light appeared as parts of a Great Mosaic, a pulsating vibrating radiating One that left an observer in a state of awe, on a par with if not exceeding that of a great work of art.

 

As a result of this, my life emphasis moved away from marriage and into a more neutral term: relationship. Eventually i came around to the point of view that holds when two persons intertwine, or to use the more colloquial term ‘hook up’ that it is possible if not wise to look upon relationship as an entity. One whose existence is wholly dependant on the assent of the two parties; and one whose long-term best interests are served when the two look to the needs of this entity. I also found that there are techniques available that give descriptive clues about the nature of such entities.

 

Warmly,

 

Charles

88W18'28" 41N58'02"

 

Fig: "I'm not educated in Buddhist teachings so I'm really keen to hear people's perspectives on this. What place does Marriage or the relationship of 2 people have in the Bodhisattva vow?"

My understanding is that they are either celibate or, in the case of Vajrayana, will use sex for state-training purposes. I would bet that it's mostly the Western teachers and practitioners who have tried to integrate marriage. Trungpa Rinpoche tossed off his monastic vows when he came to the West and got married, and then he tossed off his marriage vows and had sex with his students . . .  

If I remember correctly from the retreat of his I attended, Lama Surya Das is married. He gives a nice talk on the subject in an article titled "A Buddhist Valentine."

Waking up Together is a book by a couple of Zen teachers that was endorsed by Roshi Bernie Glassman, who is also married.

Shunryu Suzuki was married. Maybe they marry in Zen Buddhism.

 

I'd also like to offer a portion of an Andrew Cohen retreat I attended last year in which he talks about relationship, sex, and marriage in an enlightenment context and in an evolutionary context. I think he offers some interesting and important perspectives on these issues. I transcribed it from a recording a while back and have edited it lightly.

 

 Sunday, March 4, 2007, Lenox, MA

 

Q: [In a Brazilian accent] How is the romantic relationship will look like or beyond the ego, because this last week I have experienced impersonal relationship with the group, and it's almost like I lost interest in knowing more personal details, so my question is … um … how are we going to do this romantic thing? [laughter] Beyond the ego.

 

AC: Well, that's actually … the problem is that the romantic impulse is a narcissistic illusion. It's not real. I mean the experience is real, the experience is felt as being real, but when you actually pay attention to what it is that you're experiencing [you find that] what your experience is based on is something that isn't true. In other words, the romantic experience is based on a projection, so you are imagining that whoever the object of your affections—you are projecting the notion of some kind of perfection that doesn't objectively exist. And inevitably you fall out of love. When you fall in love it lasts for a certain period of time. And then when you fall out of love you tend to see the person more closely as they really are than you imagined them to be when you were in love with them. So the whole notion of romantic love, as thrilling as it is, is basically an illusion. It's a powerful illusion, though. You can't forget how powerful an illusion it is, but that being said  … I think if you really do see through the nature of the false self it would be difficult to fall in love. And if you did, it would probably be an indication that you were not seeing clearly and that you were choosing not to see clearly, which is quite a thing to say, but it's true. You understand what I'm saying? So if you take the romance, which is the idealization of the other, the false idealization of the other, out of the picture, so you remove that, then of course there's going to still be the sexual impulse, the desire for affection. You know there's a certain kind of affection [and] support men and women can give each other in the context of a sexual relationship that's different than any other kind of relationship? Right? So then idea, the question would be, would it possible to enter into that kind of a relationship without that relationship becoming … a place for the ego to take root. And it usually does. So usually when you look into the very personal romantic and sexual arena of someone's life you will usually see incredible confusion, complexity, and compromise—compromise not in the good sense, in the bad sense, right? And attachment. So it's a very problematic area to sort out. So I don't think unless we get clear about the five tenets [the path of evolutionary enlightenment] . . .  For example, the individual wants to become a liberated human being more than anything else [first tenet] and is more interested in the evolution of consciousness more than anything else [fifth tenet] I don't think there's any chance they're going to be able to enter in a romantic and sexual relationship and not get completely lost and trapped in it—trapped. The soul gets suffocated. In attachment. But it's possible that it wouldn't be that way.

You also have to realize that in the postmodern era, like now, the cult of two, the romantic and sexual embrace is really the final … I mean that seems to be all that's left for people in a culture of materialism and narcissism. If you look at the way postmodern culture portrays that particular area of life, it seems to be that's it, you know. The only thing that's sacred and holy that's left seems to be what men and women share in that relationship, and it's not really true, most of the time. There are exceptions, I suppose, but it's not really true. Because people don't have anything else. See my point? Because most of the structures that hold culture together are falling apart. You know, the extended family, religious traditions, cultural and religious traditions that create these structures, they're all falling apart. So all that's left is the cult of two. And it's not doing very well anyway. People have a hard time staying together. Right? What's the divorce rate, over 50% or something? Something like that? So people are having a very hard time with commitment because so much significance is placed upon the needs of the individual, so what's good for me. So when what's good for me always comes first the whole notion of commitment or relationship of any kind and especially and including this one gets very dicey. So really it's a big messy area right now. Culturally it's very problematic. We're in a big transition phase where the old isn't working anymore but we haven't found anything new yet, see, so everybody's kind of hanging on to the old not knowing what else to do. But the hardest thing is for people to see that's it's just an illusion; it's not real. Now it's very easy for me to sit here and say that. But it's a hard thing to give up, you know, it's just a hard, hard thing to give up.

 

So then really the answer to the question is well, what would it look like for men and women to be together in the context of a committed sexual relationship free from the illusion, the endless illusions that the ego creates in that kind of context. So what would be the egoless embrace of that dimension of life. That would be the question, right? That's an open question … Makes sense, though, right?

 

Q: Yes, we thought in a group yesterday to, ah, get a dating site EnlightenNext? (giggles)

 

AC: What?

 

Q: Authentic self dating dot com. [giggles, laughter]

 

AC: Well, I can tell you, though. I can tell you … that's funny, that's good. . . .  I have spoken to my own students, you know, quite a bit about this topic, but most of them, up until very recently, did not want to believe what I was saying. I don't think they disbelieved me, because it makes sense. But they didn't want to believe me—why? Because they didn't want to give up the illusion. What's the illusion? And so the illusion in my teaching is what I call the Promise of Perfection. So inherent, for example, in the sexual impulse, even before you get to the romantic dimension, inherent in the sexual impulse, when you feel the arising of the sexual impulse and especially if it's focused on another object, which is another human being. Before thought, you are convinced that if you follow this impulse through you are going to experience perfect happiness, perfect contentment …  perfect fullness, right? For men and for women. Now that's biologically programmed. So we are conditioned, biologically, by our hormones to have that experience. Why? To make sure that we follow it through to its conclusion, so the species will continue to exist. So there's biological programming to create this illusion, which is a promise: if you follow this impulse through to the end you'll experience perfect happiness, perfect fullness, perfect contentment. Right? Now, when you follow the sexual impulse through to its conclusion, you know, out of a hundred times, how many out of a hundred times is that what your actual experience is, perfect fullness, perfect happiness, and perfect contentment? [laughter] … Okay, your non response is the answer. [laughter]
 
So we know it's not true, okay. I suppose if we would really work on it and devote a lot of time to generating the level of intensity that would generate such an experience I suppose we might be able to raise the bar there, but whether that's something we want to be  spending our time doing  is another question altogether. And I thought it was very funny when several years ago in the magazine we did one issue on this particular subject; a lot of people are getting interested in the kind of sexual, Eastern tantric practices. So I thought it was very funny when we found that several of these kind of tantric couples, these couples that go around teachings seminars how other people can have this fantastic yogic sexual experience, you know, they can have the most incredible sexual experience,  beyond their imagination, that it was very funny that you saw that these couples often were getting jealous of each other because then the guy in the seminar would meet some younger, more attractive lady, and he'd end up teaching her tantra [laughter], and his partner would get jealous. And I thought, wow, it's not really any different, is it? . . .

 

So the Promise of Perfection, so it's biologically generated through hormones, and then  culture, through books, movies, advertisement, plays along with our biology and tends to feed this illusion. That you know, the message we get, falling in love, even though there's not much left now, it's all about sex; and there used to be a romantic element; unfortunately it's falling more and more out of the picture, shows you it's the degradation of our culture [laughs]. Not very funny. But there's still; culture gives us this idea, over and over again; it's thousands of times a week, you know, that through falling in love with him or her you're going to feel real happiness, real contentment, okay? But since the divorce rate is getting higher all the time and people have so much problem with commitment, we find it's not true.  People aren't really experiencing the kind of happiness that you think you will when you're initially attracted to someone. Right? So the Promise of Perfection, the promise of perfect happiness, perfect contentment perfect fulfillment, perfect fullness, is biologically generated, and it's also culturally generated. See? So it's a biological issue; we understand why we would be biologically programmed to think in that way, but it's also part of the whole, part of the cultural ideal. But it's not true. If we just step back and deconstruct—you know, we could probably sit around in a big circle, and if we were all brutally honest . . . This promise, the promise of perfection, isn't true. Right? Right.

So, to me the foundation or the prerequisite to even to begin to enter into this area of life is to get the individual to see through the Promise of Perfection in relationship to the biological impulse, right? And then also through this, the false belief—because when you fall in love with somebody, you know, the experience of falling in love is, you feel that unless I'm able to have and be with this other person, romantically,  intimately, romantically, I'm going to die. That's what it's like to fall in love; isn't that what it's like to fall in love? I HAVE to be with so and so. But it's very interesting; you should think about whoever it is that you've  had that experience with, how it felt, how it seemed to you when you felt, experienced this compulsion, this romantic compulsion, right, which was if I cannot consummate this attraction, you know, I just don't think I can  handle it, you know, life isn't worth living. And then now think about that person, because either you have consummated it or you haven't, but one way or another you're not in love with them anymore, okay? [laughter] And now think about how they seem to you. And however you see them now, if you see them free from this incredible projection … right? See, see it wasn't real. It was never real. It was never real.

And also, in relationship to the whole notion of enlightenment—and this is the premodern notion of enlightenment—which actually feels better? Does it feel better to have to be with that person, the overwhelming tension, “I have to be with them, I have to be with them,” you know the explosive tension that's driving you crazy? Or being free of that desire of having to be with them? Which feels better? Being free from the desire. It's one less—it's an enormous problem you don't have, right? [laughter]  Which is objectively, really, it is the truth. It feels, you know, not being in love is infinitely—your mind and heart are much more at ease than when “I have to,” “have to have,” see?  So but of course, of course culture tells us, you know—and this is really superficial, ridiculous stuff, but culture tells us that that experience, that biological, that psycho-biological, you know, intoxication, is about the most thrilling and meaningful experience a human being can have. If you look at kind of the super—I'm talking about superficial dimensions of culture. That that romantic intoxication is about the most meaningful experience that a human being can have. It's not.

 

So in terms of the evolution of consciousness, when we look at the evolution of consciousness, and if evolution of consciousness means evolution beyond ego, and if ego is a cultural construct—and it is; it is an intersubjectively created structure or construct of culture—then what is embracing kind of, you know, romantic and sexual intimacy when we are transcending these, at least some to degree, these culturally created constructs and more specifically we are endeavoring to go beyond these egoically based deeply conditioned impulses in ourselves, yet we don't want to avoid or deny, you know, the sexual impulse and the desire for sexual intimacy. That's new territory. That's just—it's new territory. New territory. Let-me-tell-you. It's really new territory. . . . I'm talking about really making the effort, and it's very easy for me to talk about, I realize, it's another thing altogether to do it. It's ultimately challenging . Believe me; I know that. But  I'm talking about deconstructing the whole illusion and yet not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Cause basically what you'll find these days is either people say,”Well [imitating new-age bookstore voice] you know . . . your spiritual path, is in, you know, in your relationship. You know? Going through it all with your partner, that's your relationship.” I say, Jesus. To me that's the most suffocating thing I've ever heard of in my life. You know? [laughs]

And, anyway, it's a long discussion, but believe me, this particular area of life—this is really new territory everybody. Nobody has got it figured out. Whoever you think are the big experts out there, whoever you respect, as kind of evolved beings, go look closely at the personal lives, and you'll see. This is really new territory. Nobody's got it figured out. This is territory that needs to be, you know … We need to explore it together and find out. . . . And I can see most of my own students would, didn't want to take on board what I was saying because they didn't want to give up the illusion …  See my point? …  Hi.

 

Q: Just before we leave this I understand–

 

AC: I'm other people are going to have—this is hot stuff. [laughs]

 

Q: I didn't get the material, but there was something recently put out about marriage and celebrating an anniversary of yours and some people here were married—what's the contract, or what's the agreement, between parties in a marriage here?

 

AC: Well, to do what I was just advocating, basically. Do you want me to get more specific?

 

Q: Well, I'm guessing. I'm wondering why the partnership …between two people.

 

AC: Oh, why the partnership? Oh, because people are interested in sex. [laughs] Because I think people are interested in sex, and also I think they're .. . and I think some of them really wanted to try to do this; they wanted to try to do this my way. You know some people had the guts, “Let's do this.” And also, you see, in relationship to this teaching, when you really get it is really all about living the fifth tenet of the teaching. So the reason you'd get into relationship may be because you were interested in sex, but beyond is because you want to try and actually pull off, put into practice, and demonstrate that it's possible to have an egoless relationship that includes the sexual dimension of life. And prove it to who? To the world, everyone else. Because I mean  everybody is confused about this area of life. It is  very, very, very, very confusing. Right? So . .

 

Q: So there's an intention or an agreement that this is, um, ongoing; it's a mutual commitment for … . the rest of life or for a term? I mean is that part of it?

 

AC: Well, one would hope, I mean, but you know. [laughs]

 

Q: I just wonder if it's explicitly stated. Okay we're agreeing to this-

 

AC: Until death do us part? No, I  mean, I didn't get into that., you know. I didn't get into writing any particular contract. But …you should listen to the talk. I gave a long, I think an hour and half talk, I was sitting right here, and it's on video and audio. I gave a long talk on this whole particular subject if you want to go into a lot of details. So…so  no there was no time element specified, but what I did say is, if my memory serves me right is that now—I'm talking about postmodern culture now—that when people are able, when a couple are able to stay together, for the right reasons, because often people stay together for the wrong reasons, right? Because they don't have the guts, right, to get out of a mess, right? And do something better? Right? Okay, so we could stay together for the wrong reasons. But when a couple stays together and makes the effort and struggles, in the right way to stay together for the right reasons and manages to do so and are actually happy individuals, you know, that their union expresses a kind of trust and camaraderie and commitment to a higher ideal, and it lasts? Man, it gives other people tremendous confidence in life. See? So that's one of the things I was speaking about. So no, so there's no particular time, I didn't say, you know, anybody needs to stay together for a particular period of time, but the idea here is that I think it's important that some of us are able to stay together. Because it means something very important. It means a lot to others. It means a lot to others. I mean, speaking very personally, you know, in my own relationship with my own wife has been—and I spoke about it on this tape, so  you can hear more about it—but it's been very challenging for me because when we got together; you know we were together for about a year before my awakening and before I started teaching, and then we separated, and then we got back  together after I started teaching— and this is one of the things I speak about in the talk—I said, “Look, if we're going to be together now you have to be as committed to this as I am and as surrendered to this—this is when I started teaching, into this kind of hurricane that we were in the middle of. And she said, “Yes, absolutely,” she agreed. But what it means to get together in a kind of egoless context for the sake of this larger purpose—it was way beyond where she was actually at.

So …you know, people didn't like it when I said this, but the fact of the matter is I had to hang in there for many years when, you know, waiting for her to kind of be ready to authentically live up to the original, initial commitment, which I think really only started happening in the last year, year and a half. Okay, now people don't like it; I'm not supposed to say things like this, but I don't really care because it's true. [laughs]

But the point is, but I'm glad I did, see? But the reason that I hung in there was really because of what I'm trying to do in the world. It's not that I don't care for her; that's not the issue. But personally, you know, there were a lot of times when I was just fed up, just merely personally. But it was because there was a larger purpose that I'm doing this that I hung in there. Hoping against hope against hope that she would, you know, dig more deeply into the context that we're together [in]. It's not merely a personal journey that we're on here. It has to do with my teachings; it was to do with what we're doing. So my patience and commitment paid of. But if it was merely for me, if it was just for me I wouldn't have hung in there for all those years. Why would I? Why would I wait around that long?  But it's because of the larger purpose.  You see and it has to do with everything that I'm saying here. It has to do with everything that I'm saying. . . .  I could have gone many other directions, or … a couple other directions [laughs]. And I think it would have been very—if people knew what my personal circumstances were it would have been understandable. I wouldn't have been breaking any rules. But there's a kind of deeper level of integrity that I was trying to kind of demonstrate that ups the bar for everyone else. See my point?

So it has to do with, so what's the meaning of relationship? So in an evolutionary developmental context, is the meaning and purpose of relationship—is it just for the individual? Is it just for what you're getting out of it right now? Cause if it's just about your ego and your narcissistic inclinations it's just going to be about what you're getting out of it, you know. What is your relationship giving to you right now? Okay? But at a certain point and especially in relationship to a lot of things we've been speaking about there has to be a point when it's not about you. That's not the only purpose. So the being in a relationship issue in this context is really not so much about, you know, what the individual's going to get out of it for him or herself—it might be at the very beginning. But beyond that is can we create new structures right, intersubjective structures, in this case that include the sexual dimension in life, right, because we have to find ways to include it; if we're not going to be celibate we have to find a way to include it that doesn't in any way deny this ego-transcending context that we're endeavoring to create together. And it's a helluva thing to do, helluva thing to do. Ego and sexuality occupy the same, you know, line. Really. So when we want to try to sort this out, it's really a revolutionary thing to try and do.

And by the way for any of you here who don't know me, my wife will be around today; you can speak to her about any of this. She's very happy. Everything's very—you can ask her about it if you want her side of it. I've got nothing to hide about this. [laughs]. . . . So I very much think that this particular area of life needs to be kind of explored by many of us together so we can pave new pathways, you know, for each other. Cause this is a messy, confusing area of life. And anybody who's interested in enlightenment really does have to kind of walk the straight and narrow in this particular area? You know what that means, walk, you have to, in other words, this is one area of life where both men and women have to have a lot of integrity, you know, in order for this quote unquote soul that  we've speaking about to be strong and for one to have a lot of confidence in oneself. This is the easiest area of life to lack integrity in.

 

 

The first thing that tends to come to mind for a few is ‘the state’ or 3rd party role in marriage. I thought there was a lot more to a commitment than who was guarding it. It’s like participating in sport and not wanting to play because there is a referee, who is another human being who at the end of the day doesn’t dictate your life, just is a guide to participating in the game that you chose to participate in anyway. The ref is only there if things get really f@#&ed up.

Commitment ceremony could be a more appropriate name. Mind you, it’s not a commitment to Romantic love nor to the 3rd party.

What does commitment bring out in people?

Until we’re at a point where we no longer have shadows, commitments to yourself and others will draw out the best and demand that you sort out your crap. Having children is a commitment that is so profound. (sometimes that commitment chooses you) Surely a commitment with a peer upon participating in the world has a place in an enlightened community. There will always be a point where after one experiences enough time on the cushion hanging out in Suchness or I-Am-ness where there is a drive to return and participate in the world. When one does return, hopefully having that ‘enlightenment’ perculate through many lines of their being, what role does an intimate relationship play? Beyond state training through sex.

Ken mentions in one of the IN videos

“Why if there is just one spirit and it is all completely self contained, nothing lacking… omnipresent, it’s all knowing. Sooner or later that’s just got to be boring as hell, doesn’t it? If you think about that? That 1st 3 billion years of bliss is great but somewhere around 4th it just gets tired. Why is there a Universe? The best answer was it’s no fun having dinner alone. It’s sort of what community is about. Even if you’re an awakened Spirit, the defacto proof that you would like others to share that and that is why you’re all here.”

“For most people, one of the reasons that they really fundamentally want to get in relationships is to have somebody to witness your life with you. And it’s a very profound thing. And an unwitnessed life is a tragedy.”

“How shall we live together, how shall we recognise each other, how shall we share this inner community cause that’s part of the thill of your own existence is basically to share it with somebody and to witness their life as they are witnessing yours. And the same goes for the larger communities.”

In a postmodern world, it has been empowering to devalue the marriage commitment because it was common in for people to stay together for the wrong reasons (e.g. for Amber obligation cause the don’t have the guts to get out of a mess). But there is the option to stay together for the right reasons. The union that results after massive effort and struggles of sorting out ‘the mess’, expresses a kind of trust, camaraderie and commitment at a higher level.

A Turquoise community would re-establish a Hierarchy of Relationships.
Marriage is devalued in an egalitarian Green community of where all connections with people are just as important as others. Intimate relationships would be on par in value as the connection one has with some random who they buy fruit off each week.

You can’t hide from yourself in an intimate relationship. Those disowned aspects of yourself become amplified, as do the other participants and that’s how the mess is created. Not because the nature of a committed relationship isn’t sacred.

If you have shadows, then a committed, intimate relationship is a wonderful catalyst for assimilating them. If you don’t have any shadows then the awakened spirit may as well have dinner with somebody.

In a Turquoise society, I can’t see marriage/relationship commitments being compulsory. It may not even be a cultural norm but it is an option as a practice of amplifying one’s experience through the act of commitment. Akin to how one chooses to commit to being a student to a teacher.

Maybe it’s useless for a young female to talk relationships with young males. One with a fusion bias and the other with a narcissism, alienation bias.

---

A clever ironic quote is best here... instead I'll smile :)

Hi Fig,

 

At the risk of stating the obvious, maybe some words are in order about the role of the state in the unfoldment of humans in general and how it may affect their relations with the other.

 

Standard integral theory holds that cultures tend to encourage the development of its constituents up to the point of its average altitude, and importantly to discourage development above that point. Roughly this means that if someone is to rise above a cog in the wheel, cookie-cutter stamp, that cultures tend to impose, they will of necessity face collective opposition. I guess one could say that facing this opposition is the price of individuality.

 

These social pressures are considerable, but with perseverance, and attention from those who have succeeded in overcoming these pressures, and other acts of Grace, it's possible to move ahead. However, pressures exerted by the state are a special case. The state alone, by social contract, is authorized to use force in pursuit of its aims. Make no mistake this means a person with a gun; something very difficult to resist. And speaking of resistance, where i live it is unlawful to resist even an illegal arrest, so great is the power afforded to the state.

 

Is it any wonder then that the wisdom of inviting this possibility into a love relationship comes into question? It is an especially poignant question for me because exploring the deeper, more complete, possibilities of union between two persons has been a lifelong interest. When i was younger, for example i used to ask questions like, “How close can two people be?”

 

For me the answer has been very close indeed. In general there are three main areas or types of relationships that engender this closeness. The first is mother and nursing child, the second are lovers in their abandonment of collective norms, and third is that between aspirant and enlightened being. And i'll just add my bit of testimony to the richness involved in all three.

 

Warmly,

 

Charles

88W18'28" 41N58'02"

 

BTW by the way did you mean to imply that narcissism is gender specific?

 

 

 

Hi Fig, Charles, and all - I'm appreciating what lot of perspectives are being presented here that speak to my own interest, curiosity, feelings and needs, in this juicy subject.

Charles, I want to express again my admiration for the voice in which you respond to these and so many questions - you write so clearly, succinctly, and on target, directly and with metaphor and example, and it surprises me in the absence of superfluity and emotional involvement.

What you say here sounds right on.

"At the risk of stating the obvious, maybe some words are in order about the role of the state in the unfoldment of humans in general and how it may affect their relations with the other.

Standard integral theory holds that cultures tend to encourage the development of its constituents up to the point of its average altitude, and importantly to discourage development above that point. Roughly this means that if someone is to rise above a cog in the wheel, cookie-cutter stamp, that cultures tend to impose, they will of necessity face collective opposition. I guess one could say that facing this opposition is the price of individuality.

These social pressures are considerable, but with perseverance, and attention from those who have succeeded in overcoming these pressures, and other acts of Grace, it's possible to move ahead. However, pressures exerted by the state are a special case. The state alone, by social contract, is authorized to use force in pursuit of its aims. Make no mistake this means a person with a gun; something very difficult to resist. And speaking of resistance, where i live it is unlawful to resist even an illegal arrest, so great is the power afforded to the state."

I will add aloud what is implicit in the social theory that you have clarified - that in many communities and jurisdictions, much or most of marital relating behavior doesn't trigger the vigilance and proactive force of police, courts and other authorities. There is so much that can go on in public and 'behind closed doors' such that perceptive and semi-wise people can avoid most run-ins with authority about their marital commitments. The surrounding social community may be a little more proactively nosey and opinionated, and insensitivity to their limits could lead to raised eyebrows of sleeping dogs and eager hawks. And I am sure that there are communities and jurisdictional authorities that are more aggressive in limiting socially connoted aberrant behavior, but in many, most of what is done in marriage falls within a normal distribution curve or cookie cutter mold that you speak of. Does that sound right? So I guess I am wondering as this conversation unfolds, what is really significantly at risk? Is most of the concern on authorities more theoretical and easily manageable than a major threat? Of course when the fierce adjudicating and enforcing head of democratic states do come to proactive alertness - no fun. Anything I'm missing, here?

As more of an aside, Fig, I heard an interesting working definition of "commitment". Usually it carries the connotation of a contract, explicit and implied between the two intimates. Dr David Richo, psychotherapist, in How To Be An Adult In Relationship and maybe in others of his books says that whether people have a commitment or not can be identified, not through the promises, but behaviorally through "kept agreements" and "overcome obstacles". Most people want to know that they have binding commitment, where as this definition I guess says that you do have commitment until it is shown that you don't. Then what?

I am imagining, Fig, that you are actually trying to decide whether to marry someone specific and with what if any organizing, containing, constraining form the relationship should proceed. I haven't read carefully all of the posts. For me, the good news is that there probably is no major hurry. If it takes a long time for you two (I'm guessing it's just two, smile - if it were more than two, than yes, eye-brows would raise) to arrive at some mutual vision, intention, agreement, or the spontaneous coalescence into some satisfying form, isn't it all good experience?

Well, this topic has now become interesting to me - thanks. Good luck, ambo

---

Ambo Suno

Hi Ambo,

 

I am doubly pleased; first that you have opted to join this conversation, and second for your kind words. Both are appreciated and i thank you.

 

For the most part persons are brought into marriage for reasons that often prove to be on the surface. And much of the trouble that arises in these marriages occurs when undigested matters surface, this is typically known as ‘when the honeymoon is over.’

 

And then because these marriages are almost exclusively among folks who fall into the classification that integral theory calls ‘first-tier consciousness’, the positions of both parties tends to be that each of them is ‘right’, and that this ‘rightness’ is mutually exclusive. From this point it's a very tiny move for each to engage a lawyer to protect what they perceive to be their interests. This is not the only situation in which the state becomes involved but it certainly is a typical one.

 

I remember well when my friend Mary and i became deeply involved with each other. The fact of the matter is that both of us were primed to go as deep as possible into the relationship, and frankly she had more courage than did i, and occasions arose when i had to screw mine up to match hers. Now it happened that Mary was a divorced lady, who had custody of two young sons from her former marriage; and when we decided to live together outside of a marriage contract she took on a special risk, in that the law in the state in which we resided provided that her taking on a lover in such an open fashion was a prima facie case for her being viewed by the law as an unfit mother!

 

If this law had been enforced, the two boys, Danny and Christopher, could've been denied much of her amazing parenting skills. Here's an example: one evening after dinner and before bedtime, Mary was approached by the two boys whose appetite had been stimulated by some leftover pie on the kitchen counter. “Mom, can we have pie?” Immediately Mary replied, “Yes, Danny (a precocious fellow and elder of the two) you cut the pie in two pieces. Christopher, you choose the piece you want.”

 

Warmly,

 

Charles

88W18'28" 41N58'02"

 

Just a quickie....

Hey Charles,
When I mentioned 'narcissism' versus 'fusion' I was referring to how males tend towards a favouring of the UL and agency whilst females favour the LL and communion, in an unbalanced focus of the 4 quadrants in any moment. I once heard Ken describe it this way. I didn't mean it to sound like females can't be narcissistic!
:)

Thank you Charles and Ambo.
I will reply soon...work is calling

Fig
:)

---

A clever ironic quote is best here... instead I'll smile :)

ambosuno, you say,

So I guess I am wondering as this conversation unfolds, what is really significantly at risk? Is most of the concern on authorities more theoretical and easily manageable than a major threat?

Since all quadrants co-arise, it isn't possible to truly "manage" the excesses of the LL and LR. In the West, we prioritize the individual, and so perceive the effects of the lower quadrants to happen to the individual, after his or her emergence, so the individual may take steps to alter his relationship to the incoming effects of the collective. The problem is that this analysis ignores the profound effects of the culture in creating the individual to begin with, in limiting his or her horizons and enforcing social conformity from a very early age.

It does no good to say that an individual should be able to realize that the costs of social exclusion are not very grave, and pose few obstacles to growth other than a few raised eyebrows. Those raised eyebrows are not addressed at the level of Orange or Green or even Amber, but at a much more basic Magenta level. You say that nothing significantly is at risk, and I agree with you, but most individuals are not capable of taking an Orange or higher perspective that would disclose that reality, so it is effectively irrelevant. I think many people experience trauma in early childhood associated with abandonment and caused by their family's conditional acceptance of them, and this is not merely a belongingness need, because for infants and small children, if their connection to their family is at risk, it can be literally life-threatening. Parents frequently exploit these fears in order to maintain control of their children, and I believe this ultimately colors their perspective, and prevents them from making free choices as adults.

If you set up an electric fence so that an animal is shocked when they come near it, after a while you can turn off the electricity and they still won't come near it. It wouldn't be reasonable to claim that because the barrier is now just a few metal wires, there are no significant barriers.

Let's make another attempt to work out an integral theory of marriage (what it would mean, the motivation, the context) at each level. Here is a very quick, off-the-cuff attempt, including some of the things that have already been said (please make additions, corrections, etc.) :

Infrared "marriage"--survival, to perpetuate the species, satisfy unpleasant zone #1 feelings when procreative impulse is not fulfilled. Of course marriage here is basically determined by the strength of the male in relation to other males and some pre-conscious insights into who has the best DNA. 

Magenta "marriage"--in addition to Infared reasons, to support the band, satisfy the magic gods. In additon to Infared selection perhaps there's a pecking order within the band along bloodlines.

Red marriage--for the sake of tribal order, perhaps blood lines, to satsify power gods, to strengthen tribe.

Amber--in additon to many of the others, to satisfy fundamentalist ideas of right and wrong as Fig said earlier. To please God, help the nation.

Orange--in additon to some of the previous reasons, for materialistic purporses.

Green--individualistic reasons?

Integral (conflating Teal and Turquoise for the moment; please differentiate between them if you can)--some of the above plus personal development, self-actualizing reasons

Indigo--as an aid to self-transcendence (as opposed to self-actualizing) and greater (transpersonal) integration.

 

A relationship could benefit Integral and Indigo motivations in the ways Fig mentioned; those are good points. In some ways it could also potentially inhibit these higher motivations. For example, a relationship causes the release of all sorts of bonding hormones that emerged to keep mother and father together for the sake of the children. They are very powerful. It could be a challenge differentiating from the strong b