Is Relationship Based on Memory?
When we say “Relationship,” what exactly do we mean? Is it simply a collection of memories that one has about certain people, or is it something more? Is there a living, fresh perspective through memory? Or is memory always old, and devoid of real energy?
Can memory tell us anything about the present moment? Or can it only be held in front of reality as a filter?
What is Relationship?
If we approach relationship through our collected memories, viewing others based on what we have known, what are we actually seeing? Are we actually seeing the person before us, or are we seeing our memories of that person? If I want to really see another person, do I want my memory there, telling me what I should be seeing?
And what about meeting someone for the first time? Even though we do not have direct memories of them, isn’t it true that we still use our memories to tell us what could be true?
Seeing and living through this prejudice is what so many of us do, but why do we continue with it?
Living in this way, is relationship possible? Can we see anything new when we see through the lens of the past? Can I see another person in the present moment, when I can only know them through memory?
To relate is to be present, to be fresh, from beginning to end. To be with the person you are with completely, never giving in to should or should not. Seeing things as they are, and being there at every moment, down to the millisecond. Can this be done if one relies on memory?
If I meet with any of you, why should I use my memories to tell me about you? It is just a fantasy. And if I wanted to have a fantasy, I could have stayed at home. I know it seems like the only thing to do, and in fact, I am sure that most of you have never thought once about it. But it pulls you away from the present moment and pushes you into a false reality.
For example, what happens if you go to a restaurant and are treated badly by the waiter. Maybe you are calm, maybe you are furious, but that is not so important. Whatever the case may be, you store up that incident, perhaps say a bad word or two, but otherwise, that is it. It doesn’t seem so bad, does it?
But, what happens when you return to that restaurant one week later and see the same waiter?
There’s that jerk from the other night! Why do they let people like that work here? You can see it on his face. You know tonight is going to be bad. You know we’ll be put in his section again!
Meanwhile, the waiter is just standing there, mopping the floor. The only thing that happened is your memory altering the present reality. The waiter might have changed in countless ways since your last encounter, but you will never know. Your mind has already solidified him as a jerk, so that is all you can see.
If I want to relate to another person, what happens if I view him or her through my memories? Is anything real being seen? Why should I solidify another person to suit my own mental framework? That effectively kills them, ending the chance to have any kind of relationship.
How do you see?
Sit down with one of your closest friends, or at least, someone you know very well. How do you see them? In what way is your memory working? How does it tell you what to expect? If you can only see the things that you have done before, then what are you really seeing?
Can you see them without memory? I do not mean to say that you suppress anything or try to forget. But can you look at them, take them in completely, for the first time, even if you already know them?
Obviously there may be a rapport established along with a certain level of comfort. Long time friends also have inside jokes, and a wide pool of experiences to draw from. Those things are always there, and can be used to create a kind of linguistic fluency you might not have with a stranger.
But let’s say that this person you sit down with is always compassionate and caring with you. However, this time, for whatever reason, he or she is completely hateful to you, tearing you down. What happens to you in that situation?
If you build up expectations through your memories of that person, what happens when those expectations are not met?
What would happen in that same situation if, even though you have all of the memories, you were completely present and alive. If you were there from moment to moment, what would happen?
How do memories of a person affect your relationship with them?
8 Comments
Brilliant article Takuin! One thing that struck me (and I’m guilty of this as well) is that how I can be giving and kind for 2 months, and then I do slip up and do something “wrong” in their eyes, and out goes the 2 months of giving. In balance, the ratio is probably something like 100:5 but when it happens the 100 seems not to matter anymore.
This is one of the lessons I’ve been trying to strongly integrate in my life for the past few months, thanks for pointing it out so succinctly.
Thanks so much, Albert.
There could be a few different reasons for that kind of action. But you may find that others are less willing to let go of being slighted because it is a blow to their identity. It is an over-protective mechanism.
You might say it is a knee-jerk reaction of the self. Some are more forgiving than others, so it may easily pass, but some will carry the sting to their ego for years and years.
A question I like to ask is, “If you have no belief, can you be offended?” It is deeper than it seems on the surface.
As always, thanks for the great comments.
Takuin
If I have no belief - definitely not…fantastic question, but I’m not sure if I am reading it right?
If someone calls me a dickhead, it is my belief that I shouldn’t be called a dickhead, (or maybe a secret shame that my head does look like that), that causes an emotional reaction. Is that what you are referring to?
If someone calls you a dickhead, and you get mad, do you ever ask why? Why does this cause anger? What is going on here? It is such a simple question, but no one ever asks.
Many of us are prone to violence of this kind, so you would think the question might come up at some point. But it rarely ever does.
The anger helps to solidify the self. YOU (the self) never feel more real than when you are angry. It weighs heavy in the mind, and seems to slow time.
Have you noticed this for yourself? When you are angry, you are very compressed. There is definately a center that is projecting. The thoughts that race through your mind almost seem solid. Everything is tight, and not only physically. It effects the movement of the organism greatly, right down to the cell. Holding this violence in the mind is one of the most destructive things we do to our own bodies.
That question, “If you have no belief, can you be offended,” leads one into other questions. If one realized the answer to this question, I am not sure that it would lead to a transformation. Dealing with belief is important, but it is still on a superficial level of sorts.
One might start with, “What is belief?” “How is belief projected?” “Can one have a belief without conflict?”
One of the most important questions one might ask is, “Can one be free of belief completely?”
One thing important to consider is, you cannot really answer these questions. You cannot say yes or no. I am not trying to sound enigmatic, but if you have a conclusion, how did it arrive? You can only have a conclusion through knowledge, no? If you say YES or NO, how did you get there? What is it that answers the question?
One might ask, “ Why should I ask these question if I cannot answer them?” That is something that one might want to go into. Why do you need an answer? Any conclusion you reach will be made through belief or knowledge. So where does that put you? If you are answering based on belief or knowledge, that is just more of what you already have.
This is a very heavy subject that one has to face at some point. But only if they are serious about it.
Looking at the world, as it is, one can easily see the suffering brought about by belief. It is not a secret, and there is nothing really cryptic about it.
But if one sees this, what happens? Do they say, “That is so awful,” then go back to their own violent life? Or does it touch them in such a way that a fundamental change takes place? Do they see the danger then say, “That is it. Never again will I live my life in this mechanical way,” or not?
That is one thing I cannot understand; if one knows fire burns, why do they keep sticking their hands in it?
It all leads back to the monument of the self. Such an impressive, yet precarious, structure of thought exists. And this structure of experiences and thought - the self - has grooves that run deeper than any habit. But the danger, and the structure, is there to see. The problem arises with the way of seeing.
How does one see it all? Are they looking with their conclusions and experiences? If so, it is the structure, the monument, the self, that is seeing. And the self is only capable of seeing what it feels is important; from its own point of view.
It is the greatest difficulty one might come up against; how to see.
Takuin, fantastic reply. How do we see? That’s a perfect question.
It’s like even when we think it’s not the self, it’s still the self, if that makes any sense. If almost everything is seen and done from the self, all that searching, and questioning. If that is just the self pretending to be something else, a watcher perhaps, then how do we really see?
Is it possible for a non-enlightened person to be free, even just temporarily, from the self - or is it all just an illusion? The self pretending to be a watcher.
Thanks again for taking the time out for such a long and detailed reply.
Albert,
I think it is possible. But we also have to consider that the search in humans is constant. If someone has that need to search for anything, it is really the same thing. It needn’t be about enlightenment.
Freedom from the self is possible, but even considering that one needs to be free from something is dualistic in itself. A person that is truly free has nothing to search for. Maybe they will search for their car keys, but that is an altogether different matter.
The self is all search. Can there be a search without a self?
Thanks Albert.
Are there one or two self. Is the angry part not a part of the self. So there is oneness somewhere else but not in the self. Is the ego not part of the self. what is the self.
Is not everything a part of the source. Otherwise like you said we are dualistic again.
I am confused again.
the light of fireflies, snow by the window
best regards and thank you for your article have to read it slowly at the evning
iamasimpelman,
I suppose even talking about this is dualistic.
It is all One, but we have to be careful. When we say this, is it just an idea? Something that sounds good to us at the time? Or is it something lived and expressed from the very depth of the organism?
So many gurus just say these things, and the spectators in the audience bow their heads in agreement. No! Don’t agree or disagree! Go into the cave and see what is there.
In order to find out, we cannot already have an idea of what is there. Of course, the ideas of what is there may turn out to be correct, but there will be no way of knowing, once you are clear.
The mind tries to make it too complicated.
Reject it all. You may eventually see the embrace you sought after was always present.
But don’t expect it.
One Trackback
[...] material presented here comes from the comments on the post, Is Relationship Based on Memory? This was originally posted around one year ago, and as I sit here now, have no memory of writing [...]