Multiple romantic or sexual partners: the real story || Acharya Prashant (2020)
Question: Sir, we are sitting in a lawn and we are surrounded by rabbits all around. Man has made attempts throughout history to transcend its animal nature, and one of the things has been, trying to be stable in its sexual relationships. Such a thing is not found in animals. They do not have any compulsion or pressure to be loyal, not be an infidel.
What is your take in the concept of having multiple partners, or not having any moral or cultural pressure to engage sexually or romantically with any one person throughout life?
Acharya Prashant (AP): Multiple partners is too much. Let's begin with one partner. Why do you need a partner at all? Now, I am not taking a position; I am asking a question. Why do you need a partner in the first place?
You need a partner because you feel a certain vacancy, right? You feel a certain urge, a feeling of incompleteness. You are looking for something, and you feel that which you are looking for will be provided by the person you are relating to, the one you are partnering with. Now, do you succeed? If you succeed, then why do you need another partner? And if you don't succeed, why do you need another partner?
The whole thing does not have so much of a moral angle to it.
Go ahead and have forty thousand partners! Be related to ten, twenty, thirty people in whichever way you want to. Have a platonic relationship, have an active sexual relationship. Go ahead and try all of that, if any of that gives you contentment. Does it? If it gives you contentment, go ahead.
Here is an early warning - it won’t; you would be wasting your time.
Forget about multiple partners, even those who stick loyalties to just one partner, find that they are not getting what they wanted out of that one partner.
So the question is not one partner versus multiple partners, the question is: Whether any of these partnerships are any good? Are these any good? And if they are good, who can stop you from partnering the deity of your choice?
If one person, or a group of persons is really able to give you that which would fulfill your life, then you just cannot be stopped. You would say, "I am prepared to lay down my life, but you cannot stop me from being with that person." Mostly these flings are blind attempts at getting from people what people cannot give, and using ways to reach destinations that those ways cannot reach.
When you say, "One has multiple partners," there is an obvious sexual connotation to it, right? One is relating sexually to many people. Relate sexually to one person, relate sexually to many persons, will sex give you what you want? Have sex with ten persons or have sex with one person ten times, did you get what you set out to get?
So the ones who are in all fidelity sticking to one partner, need not feel any kind of moral superiority over the ones who are engaged in the internet of relationships. You know, the whole mishmash—this connected to that, that connected to that, and this connected to that—that whole network. Both are failing in their attempts. Both want something that is very-very deep, but both are trying to get that deep something, using very shallow means, very shallow means.
The body is a very shallow way to get That which your consciousness desperately craves for. And remember, all your relationships are deeply your attempts to fill an inner void. Your consciousness is trembling; it is wounded, it is incomplete, it lacks a huge part of itself, rather it lacks its own centre; and therefore it stumbles from place-to-place, knocks from door-to-door, hoping to get some kind of relief from somewhere. Multiple partners are these feeble and fruitless knocks on several multiple doors.
That does not mean that knocking on just one door is better than knocking on several doors. It merely means that whether you knock on one door, or several doors, you will return disappointed; you will not get what you want through the physical or sexual route.
It is not possible.
So if you are someone who is a serial relater - one relationship after the other, or several relationships at a time, whatever, the same thing really - you must tell yourself that you really have not a physical, but a spiritual urge, and therefore you should stop your mad, nonsensical method of looking for the Ultimate in some man or woman; you will not get it there.
You will have to find it using other means.
You will have to find it in Wisdom literature; you will have to find it in a deep understanding of life. You will find it in a love that is far more inclusive; a more pervasive Love.
You talked about rabbits. Somebody said, it was such a beautiful quote, that - "A part of your consciousness remains unawakened until you fall in love with an animal." And all that you are looking for is some sexy woman. Chances are very feeble that you will get it there. Were it possible to get it there, millions and billions would have obtained it.
So, sit down with yourself, and honestly question yourself - "What is it that I really want? Another man, another woman, is that what I want? Or is it something deeper?" And once you receive the answer—don't unhear it, don't unsee it, don't avoid or ignore it. The answer is there. Put it largely on the wall, the inner wall. Now, act as per your understanding.
Questioner: Indeed Sir. You painted a hopeless picture that one won't get it in women and partnerships, and have tried to say that it has to be sought in Wisdom literature, in inclusive relations. Why is it that it is received through certain things, and it is not received through certain things?
AP: So, you see, when I say it has to be an inclusive way of relating to the universe, obviously that does not exclude men or women. When I say that your love has to include even animals, and plants, and ecologies, then do I mean that your love would exclude women, or that a woman's love would exclude men? Obviously not.
But then this is pathological—sticking to a woman or sticking to a man, inwardly aiming for his or her genitals. It is sick; it stinks! And when you are fed up with one set of genitals, then you hunt for another set; makes no sense, bears no fruit.
There are beautiful ways of relating to men, relating to women; relate to them in higher ways. I am not a body hater; I am just clear on what the body can and what it cannot give. There are certain things for which the body is indeed useful, and there are certain things that cannot come via the body.
Once we are done with this (the interview) , you know I would be rushing out to the tennis court. That's something my body can give me. It can win me a great point; it cannot win me realization. (chuckles) .
I need a healthy and good body to serve an ace, but my body will not render me salvation. On the tennis court 'love all' is just a score at best, that's the utmost the body can give me—'love all'. And that 'love all' is so very transitory and ephemeral, very soon it changes to fifteen-love. That's your multiple partner thing, 'love all' is gone, now it's fifteen-love.
If physical nearness happens smoothly, incidentally, as a result of spiritual nearness, then it is unavoidable; but only then must it be unavoidable. Physical nearness has to be the tail of the elephant. Once the entire elephant has passed through, only then you must see the little tail; only that much importance it must have. Instead of that, the sexual aspect becomes the elephant.
As far as the real, truthful, spiritual aspect is concerned, you keep waiting for the tail to come. And when you come to the rear of the animal, you realize it is tailless! Because, spiritual aspect cannot follow physicality, but physicality sometimes can follow the spiritual part; not always, sometimes.
