Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Self and Love
ajani_mgo
Veteran
Ok, haven't really gotten over a 2 3/4-month breakup yet, but just felt curious about this...
How do you love a person - whom you may like based on his/her looks (Material Form), or something as mysterious as hormonal rushes (Feelings & Perception), his/her thoughts and ideals (Volition) or simply him/her (Consciousness).
Out of all these the Self is formed, but is it possible to like somebody for being simply that somebody, that Self?
How do you love a person - whom you may like based on his/her looks (Material Form), or something as mysterious as hormonal rushes (Feelings & Perception), his/her thoughts and ideals (Volition) or simply him/her (Consciousness).
Out of all these the Self is formed, but is it possible to like somebody for being simply that somebody, that Self?
0
Comments
Since there is no Self, there can be nothing of the ideal, the wholeness, the perfect that we may hold in our minds of whoever we are with. This means that when things change, we cannot go and complain (well we can, but not exaggerate it) about this, that, this, that, for it would represent our longing for this permanent Self we want to be with...
Perhaps without this Self, Love becomes much more fulfiling and fuller...
i think love.. is a fickle thing.. and its not permanenet. but can of course last your entire life. and thas all good..
i think what it is.. is understanding, if she understands you and sees where you come from.. loves everything about you.. thats love.. but it can change.. as a person changes. Love can disintergrate as a person changes the other can no longer understand..
I'll just move away without making any eye contact.....okay.
You rude li'l chicken.....:D
Ajani,
YES! By George, I think he's got it! Yes, "there can be nothing of the ideal"... "that we may hold in our minds of whoever we are with." Precisely!! It's a construct, a romantic image that does not exist in reality. We assign exaggerated positive values to those we love that do not exist and we are heartbroken when our expectations of those values are not met. In other words, unrealistic love causes suffering.
Perhaps we could say that all love causes suffering.
.....Or perhaps we could say Conditional Love causes Suffering.....
What do you think?
Additionally, all experience of love must, ultimately, be discerned as both dualistic and empty.
Realising that actually frees us to become aware of compassionate wisdom, unconditioned.
I cannot imagine a love, experienced by a living being, that does not also include suffering. Avalokiteshvara weeps: from the tears the Taras arise. Without the tears, no Taras!
cept more in a mental way.. i can't help but suffer it.. or at least lust and deformed love..
SELFLESS and UNCONDITIONAL....
The first definition, for 'Selfless', simply states:
"Concerned more with the needs and wishes of others, than one's own."
For 'Unconditional', however, the difinition is more succinct:
"Not subject to any conditions."
So even if we are selfless in our approach to Love, there is still a need for fulfilment, there. It doesn't say "Concerned only...." it says "Concerned more......" So perhaps there is still an element of 'something in it for me' , with a consequence of possible resulting suffering, even if we feel it to a lesser degree, the more altruistic we are.
UNconditional, to me is what I aim for, but am convinced that, unless I hit the dizzy heights of Enlightenment, may be frustatingly just beyond my fingertips.....!!
Of course, in this definition, "unconditional" becomes synoymous with selfless, asking for nothing in return.
But yes, I think Simon has a point. Our unconditional model of love is but a true construct that we try and stretch Love across the realms of indulgement and non-attachment to achieve what we think should be the ideal way. Besides, without the Self, we also cannot choose what we look for in our partner, but we can only choose our partner as our partner - and for that, we cannot beg anything we want to be manifested, going back to form the Love we so think should be. (Strange that it should be so few of us in school to understand this)
Of course, all things are inherent of any meaning. But I suggest as Buddhists, if we can give unconditional love, while we understand the true nature of all it that will fade - as with any other pleasurable things in life (chocolate mmm!!!), we remain non-attached, and enjoy the best of both worlds. In this way, I think we walk the Middle Path.
......Hang on, I'm going to go and read your last post again....
Ajani, you're really talking sense. I think we have different understandings of non-attachment, though. Can you tell me what you understand it to mean?
I really like this thread. I really like talking about these kinds of things. My understanding has been changed and clarified and transformed so often during conversations like this. I find it very fruitful.
Speaking of love, have I told you guys lately that I love you? :buck:
Keats got it. When we love, we suffer, because love is always frustrated by samsara. In that sense, I envision wise compassion to contain suffering, too. To use semi-Christian language, love sanctifies suffering.
To use the Plato myth, all we perceive, all that appears to surround us is illusory. Not that nothing exists but our perception of it is deluded. These delusions are, however, rooted in all the elements of dependent co-arising. Thus the wonder of birth is contained within pain and all love heightens our awareness of loss.
Hey, Brigid's two-timing us by loving more than one! Humph!
Well I prefer thinking to writing and writing to speaking... But I'll try to get my view across. I apologize if I'm not very clear with my post now...
Anyway, I believe non-attachment for us laypeople is not so much of detachment but rather simply not clinging while we "attach" ourselves to family, friends, jobs, ideals, political affilations etc. etc.
But for us to "attach" physcally (to a person etc.) and mentally (to a belief etc.) while not being "attached" psychologically is hard. As a result, we all think deeply and we try to build a compromise that can allow us the best of both worlds - constructing a new way of loving, a new way of believing etc. etc. Of course, the way we see it at the end of the day is that we are very pleased and satisfied with it - Eureka! Non-attachment! But we should realize that it is not the absolute way of doing things but just another way of doing things for us Buddhists - in a sense another mere construct, as Simon has inspired me to see.
But does it mean that we should treat this way of things just as another form of illusion? I don't think so. We should know it to be inherent of meaning, but we can give it a meaning to spice life up, but it will be different from all other ways, because here we start constructing it based on nothing.
For example, take a common example I see everywhere among my peers...
People will do sweet things for each another because they are attracted to each another, here the basis of doing sweet things is because of attraction.
But if we are to build up based on nothing, we do things for each another because doing it itself is a reason - a "First Cause", permanent because it is unconditioned - not needing any pre-causes (except of course, maybe just that first-time confession of feelings to set the relationship going - but after that, all that exists should just be Love). In the climate of Love, people do things for each another, but it is not of out anything else but selfless giving.
Warning!!!
And in the end, we should care to realize, with great care still, that indeed, all things on this Earth is impermanent. All that unconditional loving ends upon death, and memories do not enough justice to the couple who once loved each another so selflessly. But we should all still in the end, treat our way of doing things as just as how the Buddha advised us to treat the Dharma.
A leaf from the Buddha...
In short, we should enjoy everything as long as it does not cloud us from Nirvana, but still, know that we are here for Nirvana. - but I don't see why we should become some kind of reclusive hermit while we do... As long as we have all thought it out rightly, see that it fits Nirvana, and recognize that it is yet another thought... Enjoy!
While we think of it in an unconditional manner, and practise it in an unconditional way, I'm afraid that the traditional expectations of women towards men during dating still stick! (I caused mine to end because I neglected that) So men... No, no... It's not an excuse for you all to shirk responsibilty and blabber all about unconditional love without actions! :rockon:
Ah... Something I found online... I don't know how much of it applies to us men and women alike... :rockon:
Something I'd add for myself... Women, the only thing a guy wants from you is to have you do something (within his means) for you - it makes us feel useful. And don't bottle up every complaint you have with us unless of course - you are truly unconditional.
The fact is that I think, in spite of all that might happen, modern men and women will indeed expect something in a relationship, that's perfectly fine of course, but my personal conviction still is that despite everything that we may quarrel over, we should not let it affect out feelings - it is the feelings that should be unconditional isn't it, and not everything else.
And fact is, all that was crap from a near-16 year old single male who has never been married, and that his only time he loved was when he wasn't allowed to use the word but use "like" in substitution, and that ultimately it all failed, and in a sense he has been told that no relationship ever started at all - unless of course, credentials are unimportant to you in love (hey hey, that's ambiguous...)!
Something I thought I'd post here...
"Overcoming attachment does not mean becoming cold and indifferent. On the contrary, it means learning to have relaxed control over our mind through understanding the real causes of happiness and fulfillment, and this enables us to enjoy life more and suffer less."
-Kathleen McDonald, "How to Meditate"
Question: Is "Unconditional Love" an excuse for guys to get easy with their girlfriends, knowing that they can be as idiotic as possible and immature and unrewarding and unromantic, yet till have the girl to like him, as he uses it as a form of "social/emotional control"?
Well... Today I kinda thought...
Not really... The fact is still that, to have a girl to like you based on something you may do, or conditioned upon the things you may do, is ultimately still an expectation to defeat the purpose of love.
To see the guy being totally insensitive (when he may just be innocently unaware), and letting it bother you, is itself suffering.
To nag the guy to buy you stuff (when he may not understand that women seem to speak in opposites), and letting it bother you, is itself suffering.
To expect a guy to be a total romantic in the honeymoon stage, and in your limited understanding of unconditional love, tell him that you will no longer want all these after marriage etc., but for romance as simply a form of "ritual", is itself kind of conditional in itself, and as with all other examples, is itself suffering.
Again, guys have a duty to oblige to - but it is not expected of the girl to whine if it is not. The code of chivalry in gentlemen may be enacted only if the lady sheds her extreme-feminist stand (I'm really not being sexist but heck!).
If both do not hold unrealistic expectations, or material objects as pledges of love (which is kinda contrary to evolutionary psychology even), even the simplest, most silent walk together under the harshest weather, should be more than enough, more fulfiling than the elaborate set-ups to surprise the girl.
But of all, I require a lady's comments on these from a guy... I find it unfair to girls even as this is my construct.
the real enemy is self, to really love someone is to be yourself .. and tbh all love can be tainted and destroyed.
If more ppl actually paid attention to what they were in love with.. instead of trying to be in love. We might have some more order in this nation.
The sheer ignorance and stupidity of the western countries is impossible to stop atm.. love will to many be another useless stereotype that they can't comprehend
Mothers shud pay more attention to their children.. if i was father to some of the kids i see.. well tbh i'd kick em out my house.. and the mothers and fathers of those kids shud do the same in my opinion.
I doubt that what I say will be very helpful, but this brings to mind Ajahn Chah's quotation. It comes down to ignorance, conditionality, and craving. Simply put, we crave for our physical reality to match up with our expectations and desires. That is our main source of happiness; but the opposite is also true in that our main source of unhappiness is caused by our physical reality not matching with our expectations and desires.
When it comes to love, you must define what you mean by love. If you mean romantic love, that is a conditioned emotion based upon desires. It can certainly be pleasant, and give happiness to those involved, but with the presences of ignorance in the mind, when one partner dies, or falls out of love, or gets sick, et cetera, suffering arise. From the perspective of an enlightened mind, Ajahn Chah was correct in that the wise do not encourage or cling to these types of mental phenomenon—they are the fuel for future suffering.
It is not to say that love is “bad”, but love is conditional, and anything conditional produces the potential for suffering. It might not always be apparent, but the potential is always there until one is able to remove that potential permanently. This is very difficult when we are attached to things such as certain people, places, feelings, emotions, situations, et cetera. Metta (loving-kindness), however, is quite a different thing altogether.
Sincerely,
Jason
That was so well and concisely put and it answers so many questions that I'd like to copy it. Would that be okay? If I ever use it as a quotation I'll certainly attribute it to you.
Do you mean to say that even among women, hoping for expectations is bad, even as it is almost something very normal for men to try to please a lady?
"Bad" is not the point. Things that bring suffering are not necessarily "bad", they just exist. I don't know what "hoping for expectations" means. Our expectations are unrealistic because we think the world works differently than it actually does. We expect a "love that lasts forever" and that's as ridiculous as it is impossible. Nothing lasts forever. Forever doesn't exist in a conditioned world. We also have unrealistic expectations of those we love because we attribute positive aspects to them that don't actually exist. We WANT things to be a certain way so we insist on thinking that they ARE that way, no matter how many times reality shows us that they are not. We fool ourselves. Romantic love is conditioned and brings with it inevitable sorrow. Romantic love is impermanent. One's lover will either fall out of love with you, die or what have you and this brings suffering. That's all.
Your question makes me ask; do you think that it is not very normal for women to want to please men? You must understand something, Ajani. There is no difference between men and women in the spiritual sense or in the ultimate truth sense. The only differences between the two lie on the very surface; the physical differences, which includes differences in brain chemistry, and the social or cultural differences. These differences are just as much illusion as everything else. Start from this understanding when you're trying to figure things out on the surface level.
Can you rephrase your question so that I can better understand what you're asking, Ajani my sweet?
In my thoughts of all this constructed facades of love, I have realized that this type of thinking seems almost contradictory to love without expectations.
But to neglect this thinking, and believe that all the expectations of a woman towards a man is nothing but materialism, attachment or fundamentally unskilful, might be sexist on my part, possibly anti-social even.
Thoughts?
Romance,wooing, kissing is not love at all but what we need to fulfil our urges. Actually wanting to be around the person when all those urges are gone is love..
isn't it?
To put it really simply, let's just say there are two kinds of love, selfish love and selfless love, or love and loving kindness.
Under the heading of selfish love goes all feelings of attachment, clinging, grasping and so on to another person, thing or idea and to what we expect from them in return. Selfish love is essentially a love we feel which is dependent on what that love can do for us or what it can give us. This is the kind of love that causes suffering. For example, if we love someone in a romantic way and we become a couple and then one day our partner falls out of love with us, we suffer because our love for our partner was based on possession and need and the expectation that our partner wouldn't break up with us, which are selfish in that the love was based upon what we expected our partner would give us, i.e. feelings of worth, joy, companionship etc.
Unselfish love is loving kindness, or metta, and this kind of love is not based on clinging, possession or expectations of anything in return. To put it simply it's a sincere wish that all beings everywhere have the causes for happiness and the causes to end their suffering. It's a non-attached caring for the well being of each and every fellow sentient being everywhere. This kind of love does not cause suffering in any way because it is a selfless love that is independent of what the object of it's love can give to the one who is generating the loving kindness. Loving kindness has no expectations of getting anything in return.
There's no point in trying to find a way for romantic love not to be a source of suffering or expectation because ultimately that is not it's nature. Romantic love occurs as a result of selfish desires and it causes us to have expectations of getting something in return. There's nothing wrong with that and it's not "bad". It just causes suffering.
The biggest difference between selfish love and loving kindness is that living kindness is equanimous, which means that we feel the same toward all living beings (or try to, which is why it's called practice), including ourselves. In selfish love the feeling is directed toward one person, or a few people, not every living sentient being. So what we're trying to achieve with loving kindness is the genuine wish inside ourselves to feel equal goodwill toward all beings and to want all beings to have the means to be happy and to end their suffering without favouring one being, or a few beings over all beings. I personally consider this to be the highest form of love.
See what I'm saying?
To ask something unusual, Brigid, how plausible is it, in the modern world of today, to expect a girl to think in this way?
As for your peers, I don't really know how many 16 year old girls will have enough maturity and understanding of Buddhism to think this way. But don't worry, Ajani. Girls mature more quickly than boys so be grateful you aren't looking for a 16 year old boy who thinks this way, because you're probably it. lol!
You could always explain it to the girl you decide is worth your time and energy.
But the important thing is that you understand the difference between selfish love and loving kindness. If you understand that any romantic love you experience in your lifetime will be temporary in some way or another and that you can always count on your own ability to generate loving kindness regardless if you have romantic love or not, you will be so much better able to handle a break up because your expectations will be more realistic, more in line with reality. This will save you a great deal of suffering, Ajani. And never believe anyone who tells you that suffering for love is a good thing. It isn't. It's unnecessary and doesn't teach you anything unless you need to suffer to realize that enlightenment is preferable to samsara.
Have I ever told you how cool I think it is to be able to talk to a 16 year old like this? I really enjoy this, Ajani. Maybe in another lifetime you'll be my little brother, the little brother I always wanted.
Here's the trick: Ask yourself, whenever you feel that you love someone or something (even an idea or a belief) "Can I live without them/it?" The level to which you're able to let go will tell you how caught up in samsara you are.
yea holding a grudge.. ain't right.. i learnt to give that up when ppl wrong me.. looking at stuff without preconceptions.. being riled up temporarily is another thing.. make me angry enough with me realising and correcting it and ill say all sorts a things...
but in a calm state.. no grudges..
I guess that point about girls maturing faster was correct - perhaps I should start thinking this way, while I wait, another girl's waiting too!
Celebrin, good luck with yourself.
*POOF!!*
Okay, Ajani. You're now officially my little brother!
I'll be here whenever you need me, little bro.
Love your big sis,
Brigid