Loading ...
I used to wonder this when I come across news of celebrity marriages in the papers – ‘Why is it that the rich and famous tend to marry the rich and famous?’ Is it the result of mutual seeking of compatibility in social status? Is it natural or contrived? How true is the love?
Then it struck me that it is rather difficult for the rich and famous to befriend the non-rich and non-famous, much more to marry them – in the sense that it is hard for them to tell if they are befriended for their wealth and fame or as themselves, despite their money and title. But this doesn’t mean the marriages of the rich and famous with each other will be faultless either. In fact, some marry each other to enhance their celebrity status.
While we imagine celebrities having their wealth and fame at stake when the marry, there are forgotten stakes in the opposite direction – true friendship and love might be lost or not found due to having excess wealth and fame. A case of being a ‘poor little rich guy or girl’. This is Samsara – even those who live like devas on Earth have much at stake.
Some Chinese emperors are supposed to have taken the guise of peasants, so as to wander the streets undetected, to better make out what the commoners think of their rule. Indeed, one’s power can deter the crowd from speaking their mind. What is real power than, if it cannot empower honesty, if it cannot gather truth? The common man will always have too much at stake to say too much.
But lest the high and mighty become complacent, they too have much at stake – the truths withheld by the commoners. This mighty-weak or emperor-commoner situation happens in many everyday situations too – such as in employer-employee or head-staff relationships. Real power is the ability to connect for a win-win situation; not the ability to talk down or manage by fear or favour.
Related Article:
Another ‘Look’ at the Emperor’s New ‘Clothes’
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thedailyenlightenment-realisation/message/279
Just a humble reason why I’m never attached and my ideal of marriage. Please delete if appropriate.
Who cares? *shu qi* like the Ma Jie.
Like any ordinary woman, I also hope for a marriage. Not eternal marriage though. I don’t even think there should be a promise of eterity in marriage. Marriage is just to “secure” me and “any children” at a particular time that this man is willing to give me the basic protection and the responsibility at that moment when love is there between us. We shall try working towards a (till death)relatiobship. Divorce is certainly not a shame. If good arrangements are made, the children may not suffer (I saw happy children with divorce parents)…depends on different situation though. Still, I do hope working to resolve problems and keep divorce as the last, would be better. Third party, no choice lor.
A sexist talk here. I read the Women protection Act. More are given to married women. Why women should keep themselves free from undesirable sex? Men can disclaim something, not to be theirs (with DNA, many excuses can be made), but women can never. It is internal fertilisation, plus, internal gestation. No matter what, the baby is there, she has to face a lot of problem psychological and physical. She can never say, no, the baby is not mine. Somehow I was at KK Women and Children Hopsital and it just came as a thought.
With such, I don’t expect anyone to carry my bag or anything. I don’t hope for eternality (because I might be the one forgoing the man. :P) I don’t even mind if men throw their used bags on me (if in good condition). I can take his old things. As a woman, I just hope if relationships get into something serious, a marriage to secure me and shows this man love for me to be willing to give me the basic protection I’m hoping for. I guess why most women (?) still hopes for marriage. :O)
When anyone sees women who are unmarried and no men or anything, not because we’re les. Something could be wrong with us because we don’t meet good men who give us good promise.
Sorry, personal views only.
1. Yes, there’s no eternal marriage, as even the best of marriages is separated by death… unless the couple is reborn together elsewhere. (The best place is Pure Land – where they can further the Dharma path while forgoing the samsaric path.) However, marriage when committed to is supposed to be a lifelong commitment – lest conditions change drastically beyond repair.
2. Marriage is not really for personal security. If so, being mothered by our parents or friends is security too. Becoming rich offer some security too. If there’s no marriage, there’s no children to ‘secure’. Marriage conventionally is a worldly partnership for companionship, which should ideally be less samsaric in time as both encourage each other to further spirituality.
3. It seems sexist to cling to the idea that marriage is to secure a ‘man… willing to give me the basic protection’. Less women marry for this nowadays as they can provide for themselves.
4. Maybe more protection rights are probably given to married women because the married life has room for more complications? Outside marriage, casual sex should be minimised, it practised at all – because it complicates life, with the potential of ‘accidentally’ becoming pregnant/ impregnating, with the potential of breaking hearts.
5. Marriage is not a 100% guarantee of happiness, just as non-marriage isn’t either. In Buddhism, True Happiness is unconditioned by anything worldly.