"Relationships don't exist. There is no such thing as a relationship. It's a complete figment of our imagination. It's a story. It's just an agreement." Bentinho Massaro
Wow. Yes. This.
The definition of a relationship is "a state of being connected." But in order to create that state of being connected you have to have some form of expressed or implied agreement in place.
Relationships are a system or a social contract that essentially boils down to a set of agreements.
For example, if you agree to my demands then I'll show you love. But if you violate my rules, rules that you might not even know about - until you break them, then you're betraying me and now I hate you.
Even a parent-child relationship is an agreement: I will take care of you but you have to do what I say. If you don't do what I say then I will kick you out. Does that sound like a state of connection or a hostage situation? It's less of an agreement than it is a set of demands.
So a relationship should really be defined as a set of rules rather than a state of connection. Or, actually contract is a better word for relationship.
My question for you to consider is: Can you have connection without relationship/contract rules?
It's frustrating to see sad and miserable people looking for someone to make them not sad and miserable. This is not the way that this universe works. I know that people desperate for a partner hate hearing this but nothing ever comes from the outside. You cannot look into a mirror and expect your reflection to smile back at you without you smiling first. If you are miserable now, you'll be miserable in a relationship. The harder you try to find happiness, the more elusive it becomes. I have asked friends after they got married if anything felt different. No one has ever said yes.
Absolutely everything is an inside job. The shortcut to "happily ever after" is by taking responsibility for your own happiness. Don't expect people and circumstances to change for you to feel happy. It's you that has to change!
Your value as a person is not contingent on having a partner. You are enough.
A partner is not the solution to all of your problems. It's no one's duty to make you happy, make you feel secure, or fulfill your needs. Do not put your sense of self-worth in the hands of someone else. You can't expect other's to coddle your insecurities. This is personal work for you to take care of. Identify your insecurities/triggers and deal with them. Don't make your so-called loved ones accommodate your fragilities at the expense of their own freewill and wellbeing. Don't make them walk on egg-shells so that you don't get upset. Don't take others hostage.
Do the work! Develop your self-worth. There are tools you can learn to change your beliefs about yourself and the stories you tell yourself that cause all of your own misery. Stories keeps you stuck. I highly recommend learning The Work by Byron Katie and reading her book I need your love, is it true?
In episode #4 of the Mirror Talks podcast with Bentinho Massaro, though it's a bit long and repetitive, he plainly explained what I have observed and felt about relationships. They are so primitive! We need to evolve and graduate from this old paradigm.
Relationships are rarely about love but social conformity, a manufactured sense of security, and the fear of the alternative - being alone. Relationships are more about possession and control - you're mine therefore I own you. They are the biggest limitations to growth and expansion, which leaves people feeling unfulfilled, which makes them think they're just with the wrong partner. It's not the partner, it's the institution of relationships.
Here are some of the highlights from the Relationship Fallacy podcast:
A relationship is an agreement to limitation. What relationship is not an agreement?
I agree not to do this and that, if you agree not to do this and that. If you stay within these perimeters and confines I've set up for you and you agree to, then I can continue to feel safe within my victim state and you can continue to feel safe.
I love you but don't do this or that. And don't feel that. Don't think this. Don't look over there because I own you and therefore I feel safe. If you agree to that I'm gonna love you. If you don't, I'm going to be really upset at you.
There's nothing you can do for people with Victim Consciousness. It is wasted energy. No mater how much love you put towards these people with Victim Consciousness it's going to rebound against you as anger, hatred, and betrayal.
We have so much attachment and romantic ideas about relationships as equaling love, but how can relationships be love if I need you to restrict yourself in order for me to love you? All I'm in love with is that you make me feel safe. It's not love for another.
Using someone to not feel insecure doesn't sound like love. Relationships are anti-love. It's child play. Relationships are the very sign of spiritual immaturity.
You and I can agree to all kinds of nonsense under the name and banner of love to justify that I'm using you to not have to look at my sense of fundamental fear of being afraid to die, be left alone, etc. You're going to be the cover up of my insecurities. You're going to be my partner. We're going to be in a relationship. You're going to love me I'm going to love you and in that exchange I'm going to feel safe and I won't have to look at my insecurities. That's why we fear our partner leaving, cheating, or dying because they are our cover up. They are the rug in which we shove underneath out insecurities. That's not love. It has nothing to do with love.
The way our society paints a real relationship is to stick to the hateful agreements that you've made of limiting each other. If you stick to those then you are the prime example of pure love.
We don't want to destroy that illusion of romanticizing relationship and agreements as being love. If we separate those concepts and see them for what they really are, that relationships are not love per se, but in fact most often they are the opposite. They are abuse. They are mutually agreed upon abuse of the other. Usage of the other to not feel certain emotion within oneself. To me that's not love its an infringement upon free will. It's a basic violation of letting an entity be their own entity.
If your partner is truly inspired in a certain direction shouldn't they be allowed to? Is it love to not allow it?
If the partner truly has an inspiration that feels like it's fundamental to their life, if they have truly established love there would be no objection from the other. There would be a natural generosity there. If it isn't there, then you've been using each other as rugs to shove your insecurities under.
We've associated love with exclusivity or commitment to a particular paradigm, set of parameters, or limitations. If we follow that we idolize it as true love. And if we break free from that and follow our truer inspiration, or our purpose in life, a true beneficial connection with someone else, then we call that lack of love.
Basically if you suppress your every human impulse and even spiritual expansion, keep yourself in a box and don't grow, don't learn, and don't mature then you are praised in society as being pure. It's the impurest thing you can do to each other but we idolize in movies and so forth.
Relationships are ridiculous.
Relationships don't exist because ownership doesn't exist.
Free will is paramount.
I found this passage from another one of Bentinho's videos that I scribbled down:
Stop getting your love from other people! There's no such thing as human love.
How much of your behavior is distorted by thinking that you can get love from other people?
People are incapable of giving you anything. This awareness can free you!
No one has ever given you love. What other excuse do you have to live for other people?
If only energy vampires wore capes, we could steer clear of them. Unfortunately, they show up in the form of friends, loved ones, and people that don't intentionally wish us ill will. They know not what they do.