Dear Ram,

You seem to think that I am dissatisfied or unhappy in my life and am looking to someone for fulfillment. I would like a relationship for affection and companionship at times, but I often like to be alone.

Ram: I hear what you’re saying and I recognize that in fact you have lived alone exclusively since you broke up with your husband. What made me think that this ‘man’ issue is perhaps more important than you think is the amount of anxiety it brings up when you are considering a relationship. By your own admission in your last letter you said you behaved badly toward Jack...which made me think that you were a quite attached to the idea of getting a guy. If it were really not that big a deal why would you invest so much emotional energy in it before it even happened? As for being alone, you have been alone for a long time now and your letters have indicated quite a bit of frustration at life in general. So I concluded that the problem wasn’t that you had a relationship or that you lived alone, but that you didn’t have a way to clear up the agitation as you go along in life. Therefore I was trying to explain to you how if you want to be free, which is the goal of spiritual life, you needed to have a sadhana that would give you a quiet mind. By sadhana I mean a way of looking at the world and yourself and the results of your actions, i.e. what life sends your way (or not} that will clear up the unconscious stuff that is creating the agitation.

Alicia: I do feel that relationship can be a spiritual path because that is where my ‘stuff’’ comes out…my expectations, etc. like what is happening right now. When I am alone and not in relationship other kinds of stuff comes up, but I need to work on all of it and some only comes up around other people, especially in a relationship.

Ram: The ‘expectations’ are the point, I’d say. There is a saying in the Vedas, “The path is indeed difficult for the one who has expectations.” And indeed, the whole karma yoga philosophy is meant to show you that you do not have control over the objects that you desire, that what you get (or not) is up to the ‘field’ in which you are acting (or if you prefer religious terminology the grace of God) and therefore the expectations are a waste of energy. The idea is that you are quite free to want what you want and to take appropriate steps to get it, but that while you are gathering information and making the appropriate actions your mind should be free of expectation. Not only are the expectations not going to produce what you want but they can definitely be counterproductive in attaining what you want because they may so agitate the mind that you don’t perform the appropriate actions in an appropriate manner and therefore compromise the result. For example, when it looks like something is not going to pan out, the mind may get negative, let’s say depressed, and make a mistake that would jeopardize the result you’re seeking. Plus, expectation is not a good state of mind anyway because it compromises your enjoyment of the present. You do not appreciate the power of now.

As for the argument that you need relationship so you can process your stuff, your stuff is coming out all the time whether you are in a relationship or not. This whole Jack business is just your relationship vasana coming out. And no matter what stuff it is, one should have a way of dealing with it that lays it to rest once and for all. I’m arguing for the idea of taking what comes (or not) including one’s emotional states as a gift from God... in relationship or out. If you have a way of developing a quiet mind and you are committed to that you will practice it...in relationship or out. The householder lifestyle in the Vedic system is a lifestyle of relationship but the lifestyle itself is dedicated to moksha, freedom, so the way the relationship is conducted, as dharma, produces a quiet mind and prepares one for liberation.

What I’m saying is that unless you know how to work on your stuff, it will just get worked right back in. It doesn’t seem to me that you know this. If you did you would be a lot more peaceful than you are. And these ‘issues’ would get laid to rest. But the fact is that they continue to be ‘issues’.

Alicia: I don't think that a man is going to solve my problems and I’m not obsessed with getting a relationship I would like one. There's a difference.

Ram: Yes, there is. Maybe e-mail isn’t that good a way to communicate because I was getting the distinct impression that this thing with Jack was causing you a lot of distress. Perhaps I would not have come to the same conclusion if I had been in your physical presence and could read your body language, the inflections in your voice, and your facial features.

Alicia: What kind of vasanas do you think I have?

Ram: The same ones we all have. The vasanas outpicture as your likes and dislikes. It’s not that only you have vasanas. Everyone has them. If they are disturb your mind the best way to deal with them is to examine them and work through them, rather than try to get reality to manifest them. For example, you were upset with Jack’s downside because you had a vasana, a preference, that he be some other way. If you didn’t have that preference, it wouldn’t have mattered to you that he was like he was. In fact, if you had a preference for high risk investments, alcohol, and flashy openings you might have concluded that Jack was the guy for you.

I think maybe you’ve misunderstood what I’ve been saying. Perhaps you’ve taken it as an attack on your ego. This discussion about vasanas and the spiritual attitude toward life came about because of complaints in your e-mails about life in general, your work, Jack, etc and what I perceived as considerable anxiety and frustration. (Actually it’s none of my business and I needn’t engage you on that level...unless you want to talk about these things.) And since I had that kind of a mind at one time and the spiritual life helped me to purify my vasanas and give me a very calm mind I thought I would try to communicate with you about what scripture and the wise people have come up with on the subject. Perhaps you think that I’m trying to convince you that you don’t need a man. Or to judge and attack your ego. I’m not.

I think it’s probably time for me to pack it in on this idea because it is one of those things that one has to be ready to see. When you are ready it is easy to grasp and it will transform your life.

Alicia: How do people narrow down who they are with if there aren't some qualities one wishes someone had?

Ram: Well, the first thing has to be the core values. If they are all there, then you can start selecting on more personal criteria and hope that the person will fit into your likes and not exacerbate your dislikes.

But it seems to me the real issue is love. I think what you’re saying is that you can’t love someone unless they jibe with your likes and don’t jibe with your dislikes. That’s OK, but to me love is a much bigger thing than that. That sounds almost like business. “If you have what I want I’ll love you.” My approach is different. It is not really important what the person is on the personality level as long as they are decent, honest open-minded people. If that basic qualification is there I start loving. And invariably the love becomes what the relationship is about...giving and receiving it...not particular ego needs. In fact the personal stuff gets subsumed in love. The love neutralizes it. The positive stuff grows and the negative stuff withers. It’s quite simple. And the love object grows. And so do you.

Another problem with the likes and dislikes is that they really limit the field. If you have worked on yourself and removed them or distanced yourself from them, there are a lot less subjective obstacles to love. But if you are very attached to them, let’s say fussy...want it just the way you want it and no other way...finding the ‘right’ guy is like finding a needle in a haystack.

Alicia: The problem is that I am a fuzzy, not clear, person.

Ram: Yes, this is why I’m trying to help you get clarity. Honestly, Alicia, this idea I’ve been trumpeting is not rocket science. It is just common sense, spirituality 101. But you do not seem to want to see it.

Alicia: Other women might not even try to get involved with someone if some basic, important things weren't there.

Ram: That’s common sense, Alicia. The fact that the basics aren’t there with Jack and that you still are holding on to the idea of making a relationship with him indicates to me that you want a relationship badly.

Alicia: How do you surrender to the relationship?

Ram: You see that the relationship, not your ego needs, is the purpose of the relationship. By relationship I mean love. So you don’t make an issue when you don’t get what you want. You don’t resent having to let go of your issue. You see that it builds a good relationship to sacrifice the stuff that is getting in the way of communicating. You do not believe that you are ‘right.’ I think your idea is that if your ego needs are met, then you will consider a relationship. This is what you see in the matrimonials and the personals. It is fine for what it is because you don’t want to take up with somebody who is going to agitate you, but if that is all there is, then where does love fit in? A relationship with someone who ‘fits’ with your needs does not guarantee love.

Alicia: I find this very helpful and I also hope that you see that I find spiritual validity in a relationship too.

Ram: I agree that a relationship can be spiritually valuable but only if it based on Spirit. I don’t believe, however, that a relationship based on needs guarantees spiritual growth. Most everyone in the society is in a relationship and how spiritual is the society? There is nothing wrong with being lonely and wanting a person to be with but imagining that a relationship will function as a spiritual path when either or both persons are not committed to a spiritual way of life, is futile. Furthermore, if you want to grow in a relationship you need to find somebody who is more evolved than you. If you get somebody below your level they will do all the growing. And if you get somebody at your level nobody will grow unless you both have in place a serious sadhana. I just met a lovely spiritual couple a few days ago, they really had unconditional love for each other, but both had been diligently doing sadhana for many years before they met and the relationship was about supporting each other’s sadhana, not about fulfilling ego needs. They were so happy with each other that they said they didn’t have sex any more, as it was a kind of lower energy. You find many people who have been in relationship for years and years who still quarrel about the same things. Nothing gets worked out. Half of all marriages end in divorce...irreconcilable differences. And probably most of those people would at one time have sworn that their significant other was their ‘soul mate.’

Alicia Thanks for all of your help, dear Ram. I know that I'm a tough one and hopefully will see the light more soon!

You are a tough one, Alicia, but you’re worth the effort. I love the heck out of you.

Ram