Why Do So Many Relationships Turn Violent?
Questioner: Good afternoon, Acharya Ji. Your teachings guide us towards aloneness, which is a state free from the ego’s need for others. Conversely, medical studies do consistently show that a sense of community is required for proper mental health. If our deep-seated need for human connection is merely an egoic attachment, how can we overcome it if it possesses a risk to our well-being? And is there a way to engage with a community that doesn’t arise from loneliness?
Acharya Prashant: You see, when I say you have to be alone, that is not asocial or antisocial advice; that’s something of the inside. See, even external relations come from somewhere, right? Let’s say I relate to you, I relate to him, I relate to her; there is a center, a point from where the relationship is arising, right?
Most often, the relationship comes from a point of incompleteness. So I say, “There is something missing in my life, and because there is something missing in my life, I’ll strike a relationship with this, and the assumption will be that when this enters my life, then I’ll be complete, there’ll be happiness, there’ll be fulfillment.” That’s the usual center of relationship, and this is what we call society.
Please see, “You scratch my back, I scratch your back.” That’s a social contract. That’s also what we usually call marriage: exchange of pleasure, exchange of dependencies. Right? So that’s a center from which we proceed to relate with someone. That’s the society. That’s what I’m arguing against.
There can be another way of relating to the other. We are not talking of relating versus not relating; we are talking of relating in one way versus relating in another way.
Aloneness does not mean that you don’t relate. Aloneness means you relate from another center.
The usual center is pretty rotten, is it not?
If this is useful to me, and that’s the reason I come to this (picking up a handkerchief from the table) or purchase this, will I ever care for its freedom? The man took a wife, because the wife would take care of the house and breed kids and be good at kitchen and be good at the bed and also take care of the old parents. If that is the reason, would the man ever let the wife be free? Or vice-versa, would the wife let the man be free? I’m asking.
That’s the nature of the social contract, and that’s why there is a lot of violence. And that’s why you should not be surprised when you hear of spouses killing each other or living partners killing each other, or daughters being killed by fathers, or nations fighting each other. Because peace, whether between family members or between countries, is very fragile. It’s a peace dependent on self-interests.
“As long as you are giving me pleasure, as long as you are satisfying my needs, there will be peace. The day you stop obeying my command, the day you stop fulfilling my desires, there will be war.” War between father and son, war between countries. That’s the usual contract.
I’m talking about a different kind of contract. Can’t I be first of all existentially complete? Obviously, when it comes to air, I must be dependent on the universe. For this mic, I am dependent on the manufacturer. For this interaction, I am dependent on this intelligent panel, and you’re dependent on me. For sitting, I’m dependent on this sofa. Right? So this kind of dependence is unavoidable. But can’t there be another kind of independence? Yes, I’m dependent on this, this, this, everything. But still, can’t there be independence within?
I mean, I’m speaking to you. Why must I speak to you for personal gain? And if I’m speaking to you for personal gain, can I ever be truthful to you? Then I’ll have to mince my words and mix my words and dilute them and sweeten them. Can I then say it is Truth without apology? Can I then say I’m talking of a relationship from that center? Please understand. Why do I have to relate to exploit? Why do I have to relate to be dependent?
And that can happen and result in a very very beautiful relationship, if you are existentially complete within, only then can there be love. I come to you not to take away something. I come to you not to snatch something. I come to you not for my bare needs. I come to you to just be with you. I come to you to give sometimes, or if I have to come to you to take something, I’m very open and naked about it. Are you getting it?
That’s a center of aloneness. It’s not an antisocial center. It is not a center of social aloofness. In fact, only from this center of aloneness; aloneness meaning total inner completeness. From this center of aloneness there can be beautiful relationships; there can be loving relationships; there can be compassion, because now you are not looking to be a parasite, because now you are not looking to be a commander, an owner, a colonizer.
Questioner: So then, where would we say something like true love comes from? Or does that concept not exist; soulmates and all of that, the One?
Acharya Prashant: So this is what true love is. No? It doesn’t look like ordinary love. Therefore, it rarely gets its dues. True love would rarely be appreciated. It would not get its dues. True love would look like apathy. It can even look like cruelty.
And false love is always very saccharine-loaded, we love it, you know: rainbows, and scarves, and teddy bears, and chocolates, and somebody opening the doors for you, and somebody taking care of your flowing gown; that looks so nice, but that’s not love. And then it presents its ugly face, and we are shocked. We say, “I have been deceived, cheating, cheating, cheating.” No, that’s not cheating. That’s the nature of the relationship. It is inbuilt in the relationship. It is going to happen, necessarily going to happen. You should have seen it coming.
On the other hand, true love is not romantic. True love is not a thing of pleasant experience. It is a thing of inner elevation. It’s a thing of holding somebody’s hand for their sake, not your own.
It is a thing of compassion. It is about supporting the other in the right pursuit. In that sense, it is true companionship: “I’m there in your life to enable you to do the right thing and live rightly.” And that is true love. But that can appear harsh. That appears harsh because our expectation has been framed by movies and all the songs and all the hormonal stuff.
Questioner: Sir, I’m Dr. Chakravarti. Sir, should there be zero expectation in a relationship?
Acharya Prashant: Not at all. There should be great expectations in a relationship, but you must expect for that person, not for yourself. There can be great anger also in a relationship. If you are not doing what is best for you, on the other hand, there is a kind of anger: “You didn’t fulfill my desires, so I’m angry.”
You can have great expectations. As I speak to you, some part of me expects attention, not because I want to be applauded, but because I come here to share something which I truly think is valuable. Therefore, there is an expectation that there would be attention. Do you get this?
Everything is all right if it comes from the right center. Expectations are beautiful if they come from the right center. Why shouldn’t one expect? You should expect from others; you should also expect from yourself. You can even punish yourself, just as you can punish others, that’s fine. But from the right center, not for your own self-serving interests.
And whether you are being self-serving or truly loving, only the mirror can tell you. Nobody else can. You can exploit the other in the name of loving the other and say, “I’m doing it all for you. Give all your money to me because I know you’ll blow away the money. I don’t trust you; you always burn money at all the wrong places. So give me all your money, I’m doing it for you.” All these things can always be justified. But justification is not the same as honesty. Or is it? You can rationalize all kinds of things. The mirror is another thing. Only the mirror can tell you what you are really doing and where it’s coming from.
Questioner: But sir, this mirror that you speak of, when I look at myself in the mirror, of course I’m going to have my own fallacies about myself. “But I’m a very nice person.” How do I make sure that my mirror is honest to me?
Acharya Prashant: When you really love yourself, then you don’t lie to the mirror, just as the mirror never lies to you. If you’re really concerned, I’m giving you a very, very material example, a very everyday example: if you’re really concerned that you must look good for a party, will you lie to yourself that you’re looking good? No. In fact, you will specifically, microscopically, look for places in your appearance, in your face, where the makeup is still imperfect. Right?
That’s how the mirror has to be used. Just as when you want to look good for the party, you very minutely scrutinize yourself, similarly, the inner mirror has to be used to scrutinize the mind and the emotions in the most minute and microscopic way possible. And we know how to do that, right? We know how to do that. Otherwise, it won’t take four hours in the parlor. What else are they doing? Why does it take four hours? Because every damn cell is being investigated. The thinnest strand of hair on the face must be removed. Similarly, the inner impurities must be seen and investigated. So it’s not as if we don’t know how to do it; just that we apply the skill only to the face or the body. The same skill must be applied to the self, the mind.
Questioner: Sir, how does one solve a strained relationship? Suppose I am the one who always feels I am doing the right things, and I am very honest about it, and the other person is not doing the right thing, and that creates conflict. How do we solve this problem? In a relationship it could be anything, spouse, father-son, anything. Any person thinks that he is doing the right thing and I am very honest. You know, in all possible ways I am the right person and other person is not doing the right thing. So how does one solve that problem?
Acharya Prashant: The other person is not doing the right thing for himself or for us?
Questioner: For us.
There lies the problem.
Even if we think that the other person is not doing the right thing for himself or herself, and that person is not ready to listen or not ready to accept my statement or whatever.
Acharya Prashant: Then we pass that person on to a more suitable teacher.
I deal with so many students. One thing that I have learned over all these decades is: if you are unsuitable as a teacher for a particular student, then trying too much may not necessarily mean compassion; it could also mean a search for personal achievement. One has to drop that. Beyond a point, there is no point exerting yourself on somebody who is not receiving through your route.
If the love is real, you have a kid, you want to feed the kid, but the kid does not go well with you, declining to be fed by you, what do you do? You hand the kid over to somebody else: “Please feed him.” Or do you insist, “If you will be fed, it will be through my hands, else I assure you’ll starve?” You don’t do that, right? So this kind of handing-over is a great part of love: if I can’t be good for you, let me move on. I couldn’t help you as a friend; maybe I’ll help you as a stranger. So then I need not remain in your proximity as a friend, let me become a stranger for your sake.
Questioner: So, Guru Ji, my next question is kind of a two-part thing. In a world where we are constantly surrounded by performativeness, where it is rewarded, and authenticity isn’t seen as natural; it is seen as an active rebellion. If we live true to ourselves, defying the expectations of people around us, it seems that we are not part of the society. It feels like we are doing something that isn’t preferred.
In a world that wants to commodify us and insists on utility and results even in simple processes that bring joy, how do we live authentically, and how do we get joy from small things?
Acharya Prashant: You’re asking how to live authentically when there is so much peer pressure and social influence? That's what you are saying?
Questioner: Yes, sir.
Acharya Prashant: Society is not one thing. This that we have gathered here right now is a society. But I’m pretty sure your institution consists of thousands of professionals. I was told 6 to 7,000 OPDs per day, so all that is society, all that is society. But this is what you have chosen to engage with. So society is nothing objective. Society is subjective. You determine your society.
You must have a smartphone. How many persons approximately are there in your contact list? How many? 50? 60? At max somebody would have 500. At max. What is the population of the world? Crossed 8 billion. How many societies are possible? And why must you abdicate your power to choose? Why must these 50 people in your contact list constitute your society? Isn’t that what we call a society?
When you say society, do you mean everybody?
Questioner: Since the invention of social media, we don’t have just central peer pressure. It’s a kind of peer pressure from all over.
Acharya Prashant: Not all over, still not all over. YouTube, Facebook, etc. Out of the population of 8 billion on this planet, 3 billion, 5 billion app downloads. How many societies are possible even in social media? How many people follow you on social media, or let’s say on Instagram, versus the number of those who have downloaded Instagram?
So there is a great choice available. Why don’t you exercise the choice? Why must you say, “I must be good in the eyes of these 778 followers that I have on Instagram?” If those followers are rotten, close this account and create another one. Get a new society for yourself just as you get a new dress for yourself. You have all the choice. Why must you remain limited to the few people you know of? Why?
She was talking of migrating, that’s an entirely new society. And that’s a wonderful thing. I have one life, one precious life. Why must I allow it to be held captive by circumstances just because I was born at a particular place, in a particular city in South India or North India, in a particular gender, in a particular way, in a particular language? Therefore, by compulsion, these 60 people will be my society?
If there is some merit in those 60 people, or 6 out of those 60 people, retain them. Only the meritorious ones must be retained. There must be no pressure, no obligation. Why must there be pressure? Create your own society. You have all the freedom, and just one life.
