Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

Attachment: Not so bad?

KnightofBuddhaKnightofBuddha
edited March 2010 in Buddhism Basics
Attachment is a word that gets used a lot when we speak of Buddhism. Usually in a negative light. And I suppose I was prepared to accept that. I was not really attached to anything in particular, living the spartan lifestyle I do and having nothing really in the way of material want.

But about 2 months ago, I fell in love with a beautiful young woman and we have been dating since then. We have already discussed getting married in the future. In fact, I plan on proposing to her sometime next summer (2011) You could say I have become very attached. I absolutely love being with her. And she loves being with me. I miss her a lot whenever we part company, and recently, I went almost two weeks without seeing her. I longed (craved?) to be with her again.

So I'm very attached emotionally to this woman and I have a strong desire to be with her whenever we're apart. I got to thinking about it, and I couldn't help but ask; so what? What's wrong with that? What's so bad about attachment?

Am I understanding attachment in the right way? Is my hopeless romance a good example of it?

I could anticipate at least one response; that life includes suffering, disease, and death, and one day, my girlfriend and I will experience all of those things, and not being so emotionally attached to a person would at least free me of that to an extent.

But what's the point then? Death, suffering, disease are all bad things, but I think they are a price worth paying in order to experience life and love to the fullest.

Thoughts?

Comments

  • PietroPumokinPietroPumokin
    edited March 2010
    i think in love, and with the absence of the beloved, one can dissolve desire a little bit or completely by cherishing the memory of the loved one, and allowing that as a substitute, really it's only bad if your longing for her truly hurts or causes you some kind of woe, but if you view this longing as love itself, and enjoy it as that, and bathe in that, then i don't think anything can be wrong. cup the yearning in your hand like drinking water from a river, and recognize this as a part of her which you keep with you. this is the danger in love, for one of you to depart before the other in death, and to be separated for so long that it is as if death has already come around; if we crave beyond what we have or can have of the other, we will still be in the clutches of desire and mara, but to be satisfied with the love that can never leave our hearts, even when the one we love has gone away, is that part of love that is eternal and transcends all separation and impermanence
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Theres nothing wrong with a romance. It could be a good thing. But the point is that it actually doesn't rid us of the problem of suffering. It is a heady wonderful experience. I think it does it a bit of a disservice to compare it to a beer, but the similarity between them is that a beer can provide us with a heady positive experience too!

    Renunciation doesn't mean that you avoid life and don't meet anyone or form relationships. Renunciation is renunciation of grasping not of the 'things' themselves.

    Incidentally my teacher who is a lama is married.
  • ravkesravkes Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Love when narrowly defined through conditioned concepts and notions often times becomes an unhealthy possessive relationship. You say that you crave for her, what if for some odd reason or another you couldn't see her for a while; she got a great job somewhere else. Things just didn't work out in general. The external world is transient and impermanent, including you and your loved ones. Now when things go wrong, because of this 'emotional attachment' you will suffer. This is alright, as suffering is also your teacher and it will pass. When abiding as awareness, you spontaneously love everyone.. and aren't attached to one being. Buddha didn't command anyone and say .. NO ATTACHMENTS, NO DESIRE.. NO THIS NO THAT.. It's just what happens with an empty mind. You may or may not learn in time, ironically the one's that do are those who suffer the most.

    Hope this helps man, and you seem like the learned type. You'd enjoy reading this: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/buddha2.htm
  • RenGalskapRenGalskap Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Knight of Buddha wrote: »
    I plan on proposing to her sometime next summer (2011)
    No need to be so hasty. If you wait for a leap year, it will make it even more special!
    Knight of Buddha wrote: »
    So I'm very attached emotionally to this woman and I have a strong desire to be with her whenever we're apart. I got to thinking about it, and I couldn't help but ask; so what? What's wrong with that? What's so bad about attachment?
    Of course you can't help but ask that. You're in love. :-)
  • fivebellsfivebells Veteran
    edited March 2010
    This is really a different kind of attachment than the Buddhist concept which is usually translated as "attachment." Although, the Buddhist kind of attachment underlies the kind of romantic attachment you're describing.

    And yeah, you'll be much better off on several levels if you slow down with the matrimonial thinking. Congratulations on finding something which makes you happy, though.
  • baggbagg
    edited March 2010
    You will almost certainly learn more about what is good and bad about attachment by being in a relationship - I say do what your "inner voice" tells you to do and stay mindful.
  • NamelessRiverNamelessRiver Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Am I understanding attachment in the right way? Is my hopeless romance a good example of it?

    The Buddhist attachment is not a good feeling of love. It has more of a character of thirst to it. It is the thirst for safety of a insecure self in a world where the ground keeps being pulled beneath his feet.
  • KikujiroKikujiro
    edited March 2010
    Attachment is fine till imperminence comes knocking.

    My experience of attachment is, if you get attached to something you will resist the reality of imperminence.

    One quote I quite like which to me is relevent is:

    "Renunciation is not getting rid of the things of this world, but accepting that they pass away."

    So be in love! But know that it could and will go at any moment.
    Knight of Buddha wrote: »
    But what's the point then? Death, suffering, disease are all bad things

    Death is only bad depending on your view of it. As are all concepts? (that is a question btw)
  • iikiiiikii
    edited March 2010
    I think there is 2 sides to everything. Having attachment doesnt really mean wrong but it depends on what type of attachment you are facing.

    If Buddha didn't have the desire to achieve enlightenment, he couldnt have ever achieved enlightenment. The good side of desire.
  • FoibleFullFoibleFull Canada Veteran
    edited March 2010
    There is nothing wrong with long-term relationships/marriage. One just needs to remember:

    When the one whom I have benefited with great hope
    Unreasonably hurts me very badly,
    I will learn to view that person
    As an excellent spiritual guide.
    (Eight verses for training the mind)

    ... because as sure as you glory in each other's company now, all such relationships balance out to times of happiness and times of hurt. They become excellent vehicles for pursuit of the dharma.
  • GlowGlow Veteran
    edited March 2010
    My advice is to be clear from the outset where it is you stand in terms of why you practice. Are you practicing Buddhism as a means to better your life, without necessarily seeking the classical goal of nirvana? In that case, pursuing a romantic relationship with its consequent attachment is perfectly fine. Are you practicing Buddhism with the intention of extinguishing craving for this world (the definition of nirvana) and end further becoming? In that case, the Buddha makes clear that such a relationship would constitute an obstacle on the path.
  • fivebellsfivebells Veteran
    edited March 2010
    (KoB's not actually a Buddhist. </sotto voce><!--<i-->)

    :)
  • GlowGlow Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Oh, lol. In that case, I don't think there's anything really wrong with romantic attachment. Most people outside of Buddhism handle the emotional fallout of such a relationship just fine. Granted, learning a little Buddhism might help prevent certain issues like "love addiction", or compulsive bed-hopping, or going postal at the inevitable end of a relationship.
  • baggbagg
    edited March 2010
    Glow wrote: »
    My advice is to be clear from the outset where it is you stand in terms of why you practice. Are you practicing Buddhism as a means to better your life, without necessarily seeking the classical goal of nirvana? In that case, pursuing a romantic relationship with its consequent attachment is perfectly fine. Are you practicing Buddhism with the intention of extinguishing craving for this world (the definition of nirvana) and end further becoming? In that case, the Buddha makes clear that such a relationship would constitute an obstacle on the path.

    That's one interpretation.
  • jinzangjinzang Veteran
    edited March 2010
    With every relationship comes a certain amount of suffering. But that's okay, because there will be suffering in the absence of the relationship too.
  • MarmaladeMarmalade
    edited March 2010
    I think there's a difference between being attached to something and clinging to something. No one really likes a clingy relationship, the clinger or the clingee (yes, I just made that word up).

    I also second what bagg said.
  • pegembarapegembara Veteran
    edited March 2010
    This reminds me of a movie I recently watched: "Up in the Air" .

    The protagonist,Ryan, is a man who makes his living traveling to workplaces around the United States and conducting layoffs for bosses too cowardly to do it themselves. Ryan also delivers motivational speeches, using the analogy "What's In Your Backpack?" to extol the virtues of a life free of relationships with people and things. He lived out of his backpack and his philosophy was "the less you have the less your burden carry" until he met his "soul mate".
Sign In or Register to comment.