Alone and Apparently a Great Lover
So this somehow got into my Facebook feed the other day:
The capacity to be alone is the capacity to love. It may look paradoxical to you, but it's not. It is an existential truth: only those people who are capable of being alone are capable of love, of sharing, of going into the deepest core of another person--without possessing the other, without becoming dependent on the other, without reducing the other to a thing, and without becoming addicted to the other. They allow the other absolute freedom because they know that if the other leaves, they will be as happy as they are now. Their happiness cannot be taken by the other, because it is not given by the other.”
This was written by Osho, who is an Indian spiritualist. You can look up his name on the internet. At first glance, this seems very profound, but to me I didn’t like the exclusive and sometimes vagueness associated with it, so I decided to break it down and examine it, after all, isn’t that what we are supposed to be doing here, meditating, digging down on truths, getting to the core?
The capacity to be alone is the capacity to love.
I don’t know if I agree with that statement. I believe they can be linked, but on the other hand, I can think of people out there who are antisocial in nature, who have at least a very warped idea of what love is. So correlation does not prove causation, as the scientifically-minded say. I spend a lot of time alone, and I do find myself becoming frayed and tired after continuous social contact. Does that make me more capable of love, or just have a low tolerance for being with other people? I also find myself when alone to be craving social interaction, so does my capacity to be alone only highlight my addiction to other people?
Only those capable of being alone are capable of love.
Here, I would also ask for a definition of “being alone.” There are people out there that can be alone in a group of people. There are people that are not dependent upon other people by being among them. So one could have a great capacity for being alone without actually being alone. Some would argue there is a visceral difference, and I’ll concede that, but there are ways spiritually, mentally, emotionally to close yourself off from people as well, aren't there? These are people that others usually call "emotionally unavailable."
...sharing, and going into the deepest core of another without possessing them.
In reality, no one possesses another. Yes, there is slavery, there are others being abducted and kidnapped, there are people that feel spiritually or mentally possessed by another, but in the end, aren’t you, you? I can never truly possess you unless you surrender yourself to me, and then it’s not possession at all, but something else, something wonderful. I should add though that there are people that coerce and abuse and hammer away at your psyche until you surrender, and 'm not talking about that type of surrender at all. The surrender I am talking about is mutual and voluntary.
without becoming dependent on the other, without reducing the other to a thing, and without becoming addicted to the other.
Depending on another and reducing them to a thing? This is a danger in any relationship. Just because you can be alone doesn’t mean you aren’t dependent on others. In fact, even as I spend a time alone, I do spend time thinking about others, being concerned about them, etc. And again, antisocial people spend a great amount of time alone as well, and we know that they find it very easy to reduce people in their regard to things.
On reducing another person to a thing. I could try all day to reduce someone in my mind to a thing, but it doesn’t actually reduce them to a thing. If they want to limit and reduce themselves in that way, it’s up to them, not me. People with personality disorders reduce people to a marginal status all the time, that’s how they rationalize the things that they do. I don’t think spending time or being alone actually does anything to change this tendency.
As for becoming addicted to the other. I think there are people out there that spend time alone with themselves in order to become more addicted to someone. As it is said absence makes the heart grow fonder. Love is an addiction, or rather, it can be. In fact, you will hear a lot of people that claim to be relationship gurus that you have to give people space in order to have them miss you.
Their happiness cannot be taken from another because it is not given from another.
If you depend on other people for happiness, then it’s going to be a tough life. Although just the other night I was happy with something other people said to me. I think rather we shouldn’t derive sole happiness from others, and also manage our expectations of them. So I think we should go into the world with an intent to make others happy, but at the time time, don’t expect happiness in return for them. We should do things in this life to make ourselves happy that do not require other people.
Finally, the first thing that struck me about this quote is that somehow it makes one group of people, those who have the capacity and do spend time being alone, better than those that do not. I see no superiority in Extroverts, introverts, and all those in between. I am fine with all of them. In the end, we are who we are and if I could give any advice, it would be something you already know, there's such a thing as too much of a good thing.
The capacity to be alone is the capacity to love. It may look paradoxical to you, but it's not. It is an existential truth: only those people who are capable of being alone are capable of love, of sharing, of going into the deepest core of another person--without possessing the other, without becoming dependent on the other, without reducing the other to a thing, and without becoming addicted to the other. They allow the other absolute freedom because they know that if the other leaves, they will be as happy as they are now. Their happiness cannot be taken by the other, because it is not given by the other.”
This was written by Osho, who is an Indian spiritualist. You can look up his name on the internet. At first glance, this seems very profound, but to me I didn’t like the exclusive and sometimes vagueness associated with it, so I decided to break it down and examine it, after all, isn’t that what we are supposed to be doing here, meditating, digging down on truths, getting to the core?
The capacity to be alone is the capacity to love.
I don’t know if I agree with that statement. I believe they can be linked, but on the other hand, I can think of people out there who are antisocial in nature, who have at least a very warped idea of what love is. So correlation does not prove causation, as the scientifically-minded say. I spend a lot of time alone, and I do find myself becoming frayed and tired after continuous social contact. Does that make me more capable of love, or just have a low tolerance for being with other people? I also find myself when alone to be craving social interaction, so does my capacity to be alone only highlight my addiction to other people?
Only those capable of being alone are capable of love.
Here, I would also ask for a definition of “being alone.” There are people out there that can be alone in a group of people. There are people that are not dependent upon other people by being among them. So one could have a great capacity for being alone without actually being alone. Some would argue there is a visceral difference, and I’ll concede that, but there are ways spiritually, mentally, emotionally to close yourself off from people as well, aren't there? These are people that others usually call "emotionally unavailable."
...sharing, and going into the deepest core of another without possessing them.
In reality, no one possesses another. Yes, there is slavery, there are others being abducted and kidnapped, there are people that feel spiritually or mentally possessed by another, but in the end, aren’t you, you? I can never truly possess you unless you surrender yourself to me, and then it’s not possession at all, but something else, something wonderful. I should add though that there are people that coerce and abuse and hammer away at your psyche until you surrender, and 'm not talking about that type of surrender at all. The surrender I am talking about is mutual and voluntary.
without becoming dependent on the other, without reducing the other to a thing, and without becoming addicted to the other.
Depending on another and reducing them to a thing? This is a danger in any relationship. Just because you can be alone doesn’t mean you aren’t dependent on others. In fact, even as I spend a time alone, I do spend time thinking about others, being concerned about them, etc. And again, antisocial people spend a great amount of time alone as well, and we know that they find it very easy to reduce people in their regard to things.
On reducing another person to a thing. I could try all day to reduce someone in my mind to a thing, but it doesn’t actually reduce them to a thing. If they want to limit and reduce themselves in that way, it’s up to them, not me. People with personality disorders reduce people to a marginal status all the time, that’s how they rationalize the things that they do. I don’t think spending time or being alone actually does anything to change this tendency.
As for becoming addicted to the other. I think there are people out there that spend time alone with themselves in order to become more addicted to someone. As it is said absence makes the heart grow fonder. Love is an addiction, or rather, it can be. In fact, you will hear a lot of people that claim to be relationship gurus that you have to give people space in order to have them miss you.
Their happiness cannot be taken from another because it is not given from another.
If you depend on other people for happiness, then it’s going to be a tough life. Although just the other night I was happy with something other people said to me. I think rather we shouldn’t derive sole happiness from others, and also manage our expectations of them. So I think we should go into the world with an intent to make others happy, but at the time time, don’t expect happiness in return for them. We should do things in this life to make ourselves happy that do not require other people.
Finally, the first thing that struck me about this quote is that somehow it makes one group of people, those who have the capacity and do spend time being alone, better than those that do not. I see no superiority in Extroverts, introverts, and all those in between. I am fine with all of them. In the end, we are who we are and if I could give any advice, it would be something you already know, there's such a thing as too much of a good thing.
Comments