Once upon a time (hint: fantasy story coming - with profound apologies to Douglas Adams[1] and George Lucas[2]), in this galaxy, but still far, far away, there was a planet. On that planet, the people looked much like us (that is to say, they were carbon based bipedal lifeforms), but they had a few differences.
One ... day - we'll call it that for this story, although they called it something else entirely unpronounceable - a few people from this planet were sitting round having a chin-wag - well, talking, actually, as they couldn't really wag their chins (no that we can either, even though some of us use the phrase). Now on this planet, when people got married, they did something really, really unusual: they based their decision on who they got together with on important things, like which "life orientation" they had.
"Life orientation", for the purpose of this fantasy story, means which broad path of spiritual evolution one is on:
- the path of devotion, where one develops love for oneself and a small group and then, as one evolves, one has love for a broader group of people until one has "universal love" - which we, on this planet, know as Bhakti Yoga
- the path of hard work, where one seeks perfection in what one does, until one appreciates the perfection that is the Universe, known on this planet as Karma Yoga
- the path of developing the mind, where one trains one's mind to greater levels of ability, known on this planet as Raja Yoga (a path many mystics may find themselves upon)
- the path of knowledge, where one studies and learns more and more until one achieves enlightenment that (a path scientists and some mystics may well find themselves upon), known on this planet as Jnana Yoga
By now, hir audience just knew ze was pulling their leg appendages (metaphorically, I hasten to add - that wasn't some strange habit they had in their culture), and were rolling round on the ground (literally, not metaphorically), roaring (metaphorically) with laughter (literally).
So they all wiped the tears away from the tear ducts (not located near their eyes, oddly, and agreed that they had just heard a very funny tale, and went on to exist happily for the rest of their ... "days". (Hint: end of fantasy story).
Sigh ... what a pretty story :D OK, so now, moving on to reality.
I am a human rights activist, and have been most of my life (courtesy of my involvement with Buddhism). One of the areas that I have been active in (in part due to self interest, given that I am a polyamorous lesbian) is legal relationship recognition, where I have been seeking to have society remove the relationship discrimination that has been imposed as a result of other religions (mainly, in my society, historical neo-Christianity, although it must be noted that there are Christians who do not discriminate - for example, the Metropolitan Community Church, and individuals and groups in other versions of Christianity/neo-Christianity who choose not to discriminate).
None of this, of course, means that any one individual should not make a choice about who that person wishes to be with: obviously, love should be present for a start, and that in itslef often requires a certain amount of harmony (though not necessarily as much as many people may think - consider the saying "opposites attract"). That is a topic I've done some thinking on, and I consider some thought about which life path people are on could be useful.
We tend to make long term commitments on the basis of love, and that is not always enough (even worse when people commit to a relationship to, in effect, satisfy their sexual needs because their culture won't permit them to have sex before marriage). My explanation of relationships (in the context of a few tens of thousands of years), is that we tend to be with people who are going with us in roughly the same direction in life, and at roughly the same speed. If someone changes their basic direction of life, or changes the speed at which they wish to travel, the relationship may come under strain, no matter how much the people concerned love each other. (My partner has the saying that people come into your life for a reason, a season or a lifetime; if you're not there for a lifetime, when the reason or eason are over, it is going to be most healthy for all concerned to move on.)
Say, for instance, one partner decides they wish to pursue spiritual development, and the other wishes not to make that change (as happened in a previous relationship of mine). There is a great deal of accommodation that can be made (and was made), but it places pressure on the relationship - it's a bit like the arrival of a child: everything changes, and, no matter that both may have wanted the child, there are still changes to the relationship to resolve and adapt to. (That previous relationship, incidentally, ended for other reasons.)
For this post, I've decided to invent a term "growth orientation". In much the same way that we consider sexual orientation (i.e. same sex attracted, opposite sex attracted or bisexual[4]) and relationship orientation (monogamous or polyamorous), I am proposing that we should consider the way that we are inclined to achieve growth. (I haven't called this "spiritual orientation" because people on some paths may not realise that they are actually achieving spiritual growth - I'm thinking particularly of a scientist or atheist who is on the path of Jnana Yoga, for instance.)
As set out in my little fantasy story at the start of this post, I am proposing that this would be on the basis of the four major paths to realisation of the Hindu tradition:
The description (interpretation?) I've given of these is not the standard or conventional Hindu: for that, click on the links (and you should do so - especially before repeating any of this post of mine to others: I'm NOT claiming to be Hindu, or to be using Hindu traditions - what I am doing, is using Hindu traditions as a starting point).
Each of these is clearly a valid life choice - the scientist who is aligned with the Jnana Yoga path is as valid as the philosopher following the Raja Yoga path, or the house-husband (or wife, or other) who is keeping a loving home and nurturing a sane, capable, loved family.
It is probably less clear that the person dedicated to some form of work is also following a valid life path. In my experience (Oh Goddess I hope yours is different!), often that is assumed to be some person who is working long hours at their day job, lots of unpaid overtime, as a way of avoiding relating to family at home. Well, it is not: any person who has ever sought to do something well, whether it is spending time for a charity, perfecting a skill (music, writing, or a paid job) or doing housework/running a home well, is, in that quest, following the path of Karma Yoga.
That brings up the point that we are probably all a mixture of paths, but first I want to have a gripe: there is a rather widespread tendency to assume that personal relationships (family, lovers) is the most important thing in life. Films are made advocating leaving unreasonable work situations for romance (can't remember any the examples I was thinking of when I was planning this post - can be difficult to jot such notes down when sitting in traffic as it unpredictably starts and stops ...). Well, there is merit in setting priorities, and I thank the Goddess for the advocacy now being done on work-life balance, but there is another aspect to this, another line of argument: there are tasks which are so important, of so much value to other people, that is worth one person choosing not to get involved with intimate relationships for a time, perhaps one lifetime, for the sake of that task.
Let me immediately clarify that DINKs (double income, no children) choosing not to have kids so they can have expensive apartments and lifestyles is NOT such a task. However, Ralph Nader, I understand, is single, in part, because of the demands of his dedication to the cause of safety. I know the demands of political life, and consider having a family and being a politician a VERY difficult combination - the 80 hour plus weeks, the periods of ten nights or more away from home, the demands of meeting deadlines (if a story comes out in the media, you need to respond: you can't take time off for a six year old's birthday party, and then expect to get the same exposure in the media a day or so later [except for the howls about whether or not you are dedicated enough to the job ...]).
Of more relevance to this post, though, is the person I read about in Ruth Montgomery's "Strangers Among Us", a walk-in who was busy organising spiritual/New Age seminars to spread urgently needed knowledge, and didn't have the time to fit this into finding a partner and maintaining a relationship. Or ... perhaps you may wish to consider the time Mother Theresa devoted to helping the poor. Or ... perhaps a Japanese master of pottery making pots which last a poor family a lifetime. If any of these people had a demanding family situation, they would possibly not have got that task just mentioned accomplished. (All of this reminds me of the person who posited that same sex attracted people evolved so they could take an independent overview of society's direction, state of being and health, as having children was so all consuming.)
I should also point out that, if you are in a situation where you HAVE family responsibilities, you cannot, in my opinion, walk away from them: they may be demanding or difficult ("challenging"), they may prevent you pursuing a newly developed interest in spiritual or psychic matters, but you took on an obligation - especially to any children, but also your partner, and are honour bound to consider their needs and your commitment. That is not to say that you must stay in a situation you find unpleasant, but if you are supporting others, from a spiritual point of view you need to make fair and reasonable provisions for them, and you should discuss your feelings with your partner before leaving: there may be other solutions. (Exploring the polaymorous aspects of my nature has led to an increased appreciation of, and commitment to, communication.)
Returning to growth orientation, if person A is 90% Bhakti oriented, person B is 80% Jnana oriented and person C (I am considering a potential triad in this example) is 100% Karma path oriented, they will have some conflicts to resolve - e.g., person C may seem at times to be a perfectionist to person A, and person A may seem at times to be unnecessarily emotive to person C, and person B may seem to be vague to both. None of which is incapable of being resolved, but it is better to go into situations with one's eyes open, rather than be naive and say "love will conquer all". Sometimes love needs a dictionary, encyclopaedia and a push to communicate openly and honestly.
Love, light, hugs and blessings
Gnwmythr
Notes
[1] Author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
[2] A key person responsible for Star Wars
[3] There is a third non-gender specific set of pronouns: ze instead of he/she, and hir instead of his/her. These are NOT, as was once claimed to me by a small minded manager, for use with trans people who idetify as a particular gender: they are for situations where either a person has chosen not to identify as male or female, or cannot identify as male or female (e.g. bigendered, and some intersex people)
[4] bisexuality is JUST AS VALID as same sex attraction, or opposite sex attractyion, in my view
As a final note, a digression, my partner, a woman who has helped me recover from a previous abusive relationship, explore the world of polyamory and rediscover the joys of love, put a newly bought CD on while I was finishing this: Echoes of You, by Josh Bennett, who was playing as the support act for Totally Gourdgeous: it is well worth a listen, particularly if you like sitar (he apparently was once asked to play for Ravi Shankir).
This post's photo was taken on a work trip to Moe, in the Gippsland region of Victoria.
Tags: growth orientation, personal responsibility, philosophy, communication, control, emotions, evolution, interpersonal interactions, Bhakti, Jnana, Raja, Karma, Yoga
First published: Sunday 18th April, 2010
Last edited: Sunday 18th April, 2010
