Why commit to another love interest if already committed to another? Was the first commitment not genuine then, and thus meaningless? If there was meaningless commitment for the first case, what makes one sure that the second case has genuine commitment? If the first commitment was a mistake, it should be genuinely ‘decommitted’ first, before genuinely recommitting. However, if one simply decommits and recommits… on and on, there are obviously still commitment issues. Why not NOT commit in the first place, before figuring out what commitment really means?
Monogamy is still the most common form of love relationship, probably because deep down, most of us know that there is potential for much chaos from multiple commitments. Is it possible to be half-committed to one, thus with room to half-commit to another? Or is this just half-hearted and confused commitment for both? Why get oneself into this deadlock in the first place? Why struggle to juggle when one of the parties should be let go off, so as to fully commit to the other? And if even marriage, what more with kids, is easily decommitted from, it was probably not properly committed to in the first place?
The fear of commitment arises from fear of committing wrongly, to possibly want to decommit. Emotions, though by their very nature emotional, must be managed with enough reason, or chaos and heartbreak will ensue. Interestingly, when it comes to commitment in terms of kinship and friendship, it is a case of the more the merrier. Perhaps this is because one-to-one love relationships are of the nature of much possessive self-centredness, such that it expects singularity. In a sense, this is the direct opposite of the universal and pure love of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, who always love all sentient beings unconditionally and selflessly!
