Half of life was wasted

Short answer: yes—but not only, and not in the modern “dating/relationship” sense.

Rumi is being surgical here.

What does “sweethearts here” mean?

When Rumi says (paraphrasing):

Half of life is lost in love of sweethearts here…

he’s using “sweethearts” (mahbūbān / yārān) in a deliberately ambiguous way.

It includes:

• romantic partners

• sexual infatuation

• emotional dependency

• idealized people

• anything you cling to because it feels sweet

So yes—human relationships are included, but Rumi is pointing at something broader and subtler.

What he is

not

saying

Rumi is not saying:

• “All relationships are bad”

• “Marriage is a trap”

• “Love people less”

That would contradict Islamic ethics and Sufi practice.

Rumi himself was deeply relational—friends, students, family, Shams.

What he

is

warning about

He is warning about love that consumes awareness.

In Sufi psychology:

• Love that anchors you in the present moment with God → medicine

• Love that absorbs your attention and identity → theft

That’s why this line appears inside a story about thieves.

The sweetheart becomes dangerous when:

• they define your emotional weather

• their approval replaces divine orientation

• your inner work pauses because “this feels enough”

That’s the theft.

Why “half of life”?

Rumi often uses “half” symbolically to mean:

• the outer life

• the horizontal plane (people, pleasure, emotion)

• the visible world

The other “half” is:

• inwardness

• remembrance

• awakening

• vertical orientation toward God

So the meaning is closer to:

Most people spend their vitality loving what feels sweet to the ego

and never notice what that love costs them.

The key distinction Rumi cares about

Here’s the razor blade:

Love

with

awareness

vs.

Love that

replaces

awareness

If a relationship:

• deepens humility

• sharpens remembrance

• increases compassion

• loosens ego

→ Rumi calls it real love

If it:

• intoxicates without clarity

• justifies heedlessness

• feeds fantasy

• postpones repentance

→ it’s another well in the story

Same structure. Same warning.

A famous Rumi line that clarifies this

“Every love that is not for the Beloved

is eventually a disgrace.”

Harsh—but he means love mistaken for ultimate meaning.

Bringing it back to

guard your steed

This is why repentance must be guarded:

• Sweetness can disarm vigilance

• Pleasure can wear spiritual language

• Love can feel like arrival when it’s only a stop

So yes—relationships can be part of what he means

but the deeper target is attachment that steals your direction.

If you want, I can:

• contrast this with Rumi’s most ecstatic love poetry (to show the difference),

• compare this directly with Bhagavad Gita attachment vs love, or

• unpack how Shams completely flips this warning on its head.

Just say the word.