Friendliness

[angeleeyes]

Hi all,

A while ago I came across following passage about friendship. I'd like to know your opinions and thoughts about it,It would be much appreciated if dear Yogani honor me by his comment.

"one needs friends because one is incapable of being alone. And as long as one needs friends, one cannot be
much of a friend -- because the need reduces the other to an object. Only the man who is capable of being
alone is also capable of being a friend. But it is not his need, it is his joy; it is not his hunger, not his thirst,
but his abundance of love that he wants to share.

When such a friendship exists, it should not be called a friendship, because it has taken on a totally new
dimension: I call it "friendliness." It has gone beyond relationship, because all relationships are bondages in
some way or other -- they make you a slave and they enslave others. Friendliness is simply the joy of
sharing without any conditions, without any expectations, with no desire that something should be returned
-- not even gratefulness.
Friendliness is the purest kind of love.
It is not a need, it is not a necessity:
It is sheer abundance, overflowing ecstasy."

[Bodhi Tree]

I think we need each other by design. To deny the necessity of needing each other is non-relational self-inquiry. A mental maneuver.

Thomas Merton, a fine contemplative monk, said that good friends, companions, lovers, etc. are "guardians of each other's solitude." To share tranquility with another person is sublime. It's very simple, isn't it?

I need friendship because it is my joy, and I need joy. Sure, I want to share an abundance of love. But I want to receive love too. The masculine and feminine are both active in me. The person who says they care nothing about receiving is denying half of the equation. I'm not trying to discount the reality that someone can give "with no expectation of return", but I am saying that even the most overflowing being of divine love is receiving that love from a greater source. The receptivity cannot be denied.

Relationships are not bondages--unless you make them so. Relationships are miracles. I have a relationship with the grass on the ground that touches my feet. I have a relationship with the people I sit with at work and laugh with. The "I" of awareness has a relationship with the ego, and the ego has a relationship with awareness.

Friendliness is seeing my self in others, and therefore recognizing that I need them as much as they need me.

Great topic! Thank you.

[angeleeyes]

Dear Bodhi Tree, thank you for your quick reply.

[SeySorciere]

I do not agree that "need reduces the other to an object". I love that my friends need me. I am honoured by the opportunity they give me to serve them and love them. I am elevated. Some years ago I had great difficulty in accepting help. I had no problem giving help but receiving...Nah...that was difficult. Until someone pointed out that by accepting help I am giving the opportunity to the giver to give. Learn to receive as graciously as you give - he said. Like BT is pointing out two sides to the same coin - a need to love and be loved; give and receive. Who shall I love if no-one needs that love? It is in loving others that we best love ourselves

Sey

[angeleeyes]

Hi SeySorciere,thank you for your comment.

I'd like to look at it from different perspectives to understand something new.For example If I can not love myself and be overflowed by it how can I love the other?

[Mykal K]

quote:one needs friends because one is incapable of being alone. And as long as one needs friends, one cannot be
much of a friend -- because the need reduces the other to an object. Only the man who is capable of being
alone is also capable of being a friend. But it is not his need, it is his joy; it is not his hunger, not his thirst,
but his abundance of love that he wants to share

I understand what Osho wants to say by this. Some people are always in a mode where they need others, and they never fully develop their own strengths. They cling to the other, and while that other is there for them, they never fully develop. From that point of view it is ok to say this, some people will find this passage useful to look inside and start developing their own strength.

 

quote:When such a friendship exists, it should not be called a friendship, because it has taken on a totally new
dimension: I call it "friendliness." It has gone beyond relationship, because all relationships are bondages in
some way or other -- they make you a slave and they enslave others. Friendliness is simply the joy of
sharing without any conditions, without any expectations, with no desire that something should be returned
-- not even gratefulness.
Friendliness is the purest kind of love.
It is not a need, it is not a necessity:
It is sheer abundance, overflowing ecstasy."

This I have yet to fully understand.

[Anima]

Namaste

Dear angeleyes,

Is this quote really from Osho?

This quote is working with some complex ideas. In my own experience, I've found that I can't quench my thirst for meaning with intellect. That's what Osho is getting at here: He's denying any meaning as it is in limitation (as opposed to being unqualified or perfect). This thinking goes back to books like Aristotle's Metaphysics and can easily become an empty mind trap. It's valuable, but it can lead to excessive doubt, guilt, and even hopelessness. It did in my past, personally. Let me point out one particular notion:

quote:Originally posted by angeleeyes
...because all relationships are bondages in
some way or other -- they make you a slave and they enslave others.

Actually, I think Osho is very off track here. It reminds me of the kind of bleak existentialism we see in Sartre's play, "No Exit." The last line of that work says, "Hell is other people." Sartre even tries to prove that meaning can't be found in God or concepts in his introduction to Being and Nothing. In the end, though, it's a sort of lonely dialog of Sartre with his doubts.

Why is Sartre's and Osho's mood lonely here? I think it's because, while the trait is considered noble, they are perfectionistic. This is different than desiring, seeing, or admiring perfection. This is to think that we really should be perfect, and this can make us uncompromising with our mistakes and those of others. However, no one has to be confined to such a view of self and others: That we are either innately perfect or irrevocably flawed. We all stumble.

How's it all fit together? It's no secret, really. We have our friends, and that's an honest miracle. There are always politics, doubts, demands, and fears. But there are not always friends. In my own life, I've found this blessing to be extremely important in sangha.

Very good thread. Thanks for bringing this up.

[angeleeyes]

Hi Mykal K & Anima Deorum,

Actually, to me it doesn't matter who is the author of it,because it may prevent us to see clearly.Everyone can think of it in his own way, and this is good.I agree with you that intellect is not enough and we can not see everything with it, but it can help us to find the right path.I like to hear from others and know their thoughts.
thanks[3]

[Mykal K]

@Anima
He pointed to an ideal. And the ideal mentioned sounds good to me. And the truth of the matter is that many people are in need to break free from some unhealthy aspect of the relationship/s that they're in. And you have to contrast one thing to the other. How else can you say that this is good if you do not point to the idea of bad?
In general forming any idea about anything is enslaving if you do not let it be fluid ~ let it go.

@angeleeyes
Sorry for speaking about the author. I tend to act first, think later . In the moment I just wanted to give credit where I thought the credit was due. Realized later why you omitted the authorship.

[SeySorciere]

quote:Originally posted by angeleeyes

Hi SeySorciere,thank you for your comment.

I'd like to look at it from different perspectives to understand something new.For example If I can not love myself and be overflowed by it how can I love the other?

Most people do a bad job of loving themselves but give them someone e.g. an innocent child to love, that triggers the out pour of love from their hearts. They feel joy /happiness at loving this child. Hence end up loving themselves indirectly. You are loving yourself when you are doing something which makes you happy. Loving someone else makes you happy. That's the way I see it.



Sey

[Sparkle]

quote:Originally posted by SeySorciere

quote:Originally posted by angeleeyes

Hi SeySorciere,thank you for your comment.

I'd like to look at it from different perspectives to understand something new.For example If I can not love myself and be overflowed by it how can I love the other?

Most people do a bad job of loving themselves but give them someone e.g. an innocent child to love, that triggers the out pour of love from their hearts. They feel joy /happiness at loving this child. Hence end up loving themselves indirectly. You are loving yourself when you are doing something which makes you happy. Loving someone else makes you happy. That's the way I see it.



Sey

Hi Sey
I agree with you to a point, in that when we love a child or someone else our heart can open and we feel happy. The problem for me and I think it is quite a common problem, as you also say - we give ourselves such a hard time when something goes wrong in our lives and this negative self-critic tends to close the heart.
In my experience the two can be going on, we can love another and the heart can open and then we can be devastatingly hard on ourselves for the simplest of things and the heart closes again.

If we can bring that love we may feel towards a small child or a loving friend into our own being and recognise the way we/I beat ourselves up internally then some self-love might develop.
 
I think the self critic has to be addressed in inquiry like this in order to have a lasting and permanent effect, otherwise we can feel beautiful love and have the ol reliable self-critic come back out of the blue and blow it all away again.

Thanks for this lovely thread, have been enjoying reading along.

[Bodhi Tree]

Good points, Anima and Sey.

I'm reminded of a passage from the Herman Hesse novel Siddhartha where the Buddha says to the young Siddhartha: "You're very clever. Beware of your cleverness."

The Osho passage has that feeling of cleverness, as if he's trying to outsmart or bypass a fundamental aspect of our humanness. Some people have called it "spiritual bypassing".

I would venture to say that only when we have mastered and fulfilled our relationships (family, friends, work, community)--can we transcend them. Transcendence is not escape, as in escaping the bondage of relationships. I think transcendence is when we fully blossom within our human framework, then go beyond into a level of cosmic consciousness.

First things first.