Attachtment Vs Love

[Bebop]

My first post after my introduction - get ready for a toughy! <_<

In Buddhism it is often said that suffering the very thing we are trying to limit/free ourselves and others from is caused due to attachtment of things impermanent.

How as Buddhist do we find a balance between sincerely acknowledging what is superficial and impermenant but still living our lives as non-ascetics? Can it even be done without a slice of hypocrasy?

And what about attachtment to people? Should we live our lives experiencing only a dutiful compassion and one absent of love? Or could one argue that love is not impermanent but indeed a permanent force/entity that is perfectly acceptable to guide our lives by?

It was once said that your greatest strength can be your greatest weakness. Anyone who has ever experienced a serious relationship knows that while it may bring you happiness you are going to have struggles that ultimately are going to cause you pain, doubt and or anger. Is this acceptable or should we be expected to just do away with such intricate relationships since they invoke passion and sometimes mild or severe forms of suffering? After all how can one know initially regarding a relationship what will be impermanent or forever? Is it wrong to experience these things before ultimately finding something that is permanent?

Love is very important to me I think it transcends alot of the BS if you will that clutters our lives, but if love equals attachment are we ultimately achieving a great emotion that justifies the goodness of humanity or are we setting our temporary little existances up for periods suffering, passion and obstruction of truth and realistic thought?

[Taeguk]

Hi, Bebop!

Welcome to thebigview :)

You asked:

How as Buddhist do we find a balance between sincerely acknowledging what is superficial and impermenant but still living our lives as non-ascetics? Can it even be done without a slice of hypocrasy?

I think that's an excellent question!

As far as living as an ascetic, I think Buddhism more or less rules that out from the get-go! As I'm sure you're aware, Bebop, Gotama spent several years as a wandering ascetic, and decided that a life of extreme ascetism is just as attached and heavy of an existence as extreme hedonism!

It seems to me that clinging to pleasure and fleeing from pleasure appear to be opposites, but they're really both sides of the same coin---attachment! :lol:

So how are we to live in the world without being of the world, as the Bible says? <_<

There's a passage in the Tao Te Ching which I think can possibly shed some light on this issue:

Deny nothing to the ten thousand things.

Nourish them without claiming authority,
Benefit them without demanding gratitude,
Do the work, then move on.



We are to "deny nothing" to the ten thousand things!

In other words, part of not being attached to transient phenomena means that we should be aware of their existence, watch them arise, and watch them depart, without being attached. This means not fleeing from them as well, but nourishing them. Being fully present with them to fullest extent possible while they're here, and letting go when they disappear. Dance with them as they come, and don't chase after them when the dance is over! :)

In the Ch'an tradition is common to speak of the mind as a lake; when a swan flies over, the swan is reflected perfectly, and when it passes over the lake, the reflection vanishes. That is all.

You go on to ask:

And what about attachtment to people? Should we live our lives experiencing only a dutiful compassion and one absent of love? Or could one argue that love is not impermanent but indeed a permanent force/entity that is perfectly acceptable to guide our lives by?

There's a great quote from Herman Hesse's novel Siddartha where Govinda raises the exact same question to Siddartha; How can I love, when Gotama (the Buddha) has taught that we are not supposed to love? Doesn't your teaching of "love" seem to be contradicting the dharma?

"I know that, Govinda, and here we find ourselves within the maze of meanings, within the conflict of words, for I will not deny that my words about love are in apparent contradiction to the teachings of Gotama.* That is just why I distrust words so much, for I know that this contradiction is an illusion…How, indeed, could he [Gotama] not know love, he who has recognized all humanity’s vanity and transitoriness, yet loves humanity so much that he has devoted a long life solely to help and teach people?"

Definitely something to consider! Perhaps true love is unattached!

There's another line from the Tao Te Ching which is sometimes translated as "the greatest love seems indifferent". It seems indifferent because it is not limited to this or to that person, to this or that mental state, but to all people, all things. It's very different from the attached, selfish love most people encounter, and so it does not appear to be "love" to many people! And yet, it is a wider love, a deeper love, an unlimited love. To put in another context, this "unattached" love is agape, the "attached" love is eros.

[Michael]

To put in another context, this "unattached" love is agape, the "attached" love is eros.


Taeguk, either one and one is one or it is not.

[Michael]

Let me not to the marriage of true minds

Admit impediments. Love is not love

Which alters when it alteration finds,

Or bends with the remover to remove:

O no! it is an ever-fixed mark

That looks on tempests and is never shaken;

It is the star to every wandering bark,

Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.

Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks

Within his bending sickle's compass come:

Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,

But bears it out even to the edge of doom.

If this be error and upon me proved,

I never writ, nor no man ever loved.



William Shakespeare

[Michael]

Gotama spent several years as a wandering ascetic, and decided that a life of extreme ascetism is just as attached and heavy of an existence as extreme hedonism!

This spiritual equation can be applied to any dicotamy or opposition, which I suspect has profound implications for quantum physics and our understanding of governance.

[Taeguk]

Hi!

AlphaAuriage, you wrote:

Taeguk, either one and one is one or it is not.


hmm... <_<



either X,
not X
X and not X
neither X nor not x
(Nagarjuna) ;)

:lol: But I suspect that's not what you were after, Alpha!

To respond to you, I think English is a very restrictive, limited language. "Love" can mean so many different things to so many different people. So if I say love is both eros and agape, I'm using it analogically.

Oh, thanks for posting that sonnet, by the way! One of the Bard's best :thumbsup:

psyche, you wrote:

to become involved to the degree where you are attached is a form of sacrifice if you see it from a certain perspective because it is accepting suffering...

...it is still suffering

But you also quoted:

"The sacrifice which causes sorrow to the doer of the sacrifice is no sacrifice. Real sacrifice lightens the mind of the doer and gives him a sense of peace and joy. The Buddha gave up the pleasures of life because they had become painful to him."

Interesting!

I like your idea of sacrifice as being central to love! But the quote from Ghandi would seem to imply there can be sacrifice without suffering.... :think:

[sahyo]

loving cannot an 'imagined entity-doer-sacrificer'

[bito]

The Buddha gave up the pleasures of life because they had become painful to him."

and then, under the Bodhi tree? :)

[Noway2Zero]

In Buddhism it is often said that suffering the very thing we are trying to limit/free ourselves and others from is caused due to attachtment of things impermanent.

ego/self = impermanent.. suffering!

[Taeguk]

"The true nature or condition of all things is the great shunyata which is not just a vacuum, a void, an empty; but it is luminous emptiness. It has a quality of "isness," of suchness, the tathagatagarbha. It is the emptiness endowed with the heart of compassion or wisdom. It is called the natural Great Perfection, the innate Great Perfection, Dzogpa Chenpo; this great emptiness endowed with the core of luminosity, the inseparability of cognizance and emptiness, of awareness and compassion. Where truth and unconditional love are not different."

Khenpo Rinpoche

[bito]

"The true nature or condition of all things is the great shunyata which is not just a vacuum, a void, an empty; but it is luminous emptiness.

Saying 'shunyata' and 'luminous emptiness' is subtle duality.

B)

[Taeguk]

Hi, bito! :)

You wrote:

Saying 'shunyata' and 'luminous emptiness' is subtle duality.

Well, yes, but its purpose is to indicate or direct the reader toward nonduality! :)

"A finger pointing to the moon" if you will.

But of course, "finger" and "moon" is also a duality. Ultimately, there is no need for "pointing" either! :lol:

[bito]

:D

[Taeguk]

yes :)

[MidnightSun]

I understand you very well. You have to love people, but on the other hand if you love someone a lot you get attached to it. It is like drugs. Once you fall in love, you get into it very deep and you cant live without it. This is the way to suffering. You have to love but you cant. Ironic, isnt it? Anyway, brilliant idea, thanks for thinking with me.