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.
Buddhism and Romantic Relationships
OtioseDodge
Explorer
Hi All,
I've been considering romantic relationships from the perspective of the four noble truths, and it seems to me that the two are fundamentally in conflict. I'll explain.
Attachment is said to be one of the root causes of suffering. Being in a romantic relationship with someone seems to entail being attached to them. Therefore, wouldn't it be correct to relinquish these types of relationships in order not to be attached and therefore suffer?
I've been considering romantic relationships from the perspective of the four noble truths, and it seems to me that the two are fundamentally in conflict. I'll explain.
Attachment is said to be one of the root causes of suffering. Being in a romantic relationship with someone seems to entail being attached to them. Therefore, wouldn't it be correct to relinquish these types of relationships in order not to be attached and therefore suffer?
0
Comments
Non attachment has to be understood correctly I guess, You are attached more so I guess but just as you are toward a parent, however you don't put him/her on a pedastol and don't over love someone? the romantic way of thinking he's so great; Idealising anyone is not great as they don't usually hold up to that image for long as it's simply your projection and you usually find that out when you move in with someone
I feel that if it is true love and not overly attached to status or wealth etc and to him as a person whilst still feeling love for humans as a whole then there is no harm. Being in a relationship with the right person is worth the occasional suffering moments
It is very true that being in a romantic relationship results in minds forming attachments with regularity. This is not a necessary state of affairs, however.
Me: Could you elaborate further on this? I'm having trouble understanding how it wouldn't be necessary.
Sherab: Yes, this is an attachment to be avoided by advanced practitioners.
Me: Would you mind telling me why it's only to be avoided by advanced practitioners? Because it seems to me that if it's to be avoided at some point, then it wouldn't be a good idea to get married or have kids, since they may get in the way of your practice as it evolves into a more advanced stage.
That's all very abstract. I think there's not much chance the human population will die out from non-procreation any time soon.
Says who?
I see this said over and over, but never get any explanation from anyone as to why being in a sexual relationship unavoidably involves clinging|attachment. I understand it's extraordinarily common that these relationships do result in our perceiving them incorrectly and expecting them to be something they never can be, but I completely fail to understand why this is unavoidably so.
Sex is a biological urge. So is eating. Plenty of people have formed attachments to eating that are delusional and as a result their eating causes them all sorts of suffering. Not everyone consumes food that way though.
Or those who aspire to what you are talking about. Sorry.
OK.
(Kwai-chang Caine voice) I- do not know. I am only- a man.
It's not abstract. If everyone stopped reproducing humans would be extinct in 100 years or less.
OK. Actually, the thought that humans would stop reproducing is what I was representing as abstract. They've been doing it for 2+ million years. It would be very strange for that to stop now.
Respectfully, you are only making assertions and not supporting them in any way.
That quote that you posted is not correct or at least is very unclear.
But have it your way.
I don't understand what you are referring to.
No worries :cool:
It's not necessary because attachments only form where there is ignorance. If there is no ignorance, then there will be no attachment. Ignorance is why we cling to that which we perceive as pleasant and try to avoid that which we perceive as unpleasant and ignore that which we perceive as neither pleasant nor unpleasant (most of reality).
What are we ignorant of? We are ignorant of the nature of all conditioned things. They are not us and have no essence of their own, they are not permanent and they can't be, and they are all dukkha. They are all dukkha in the sense that we expect them to bring us a real and lasting pleasure or happiness, but they can't and don't because they are impermanent and they are not the 'thing' that we are searching for. They are not the 'thing' that leads to the end of suffering. They are not nirvana.
Intellectually it doesn't take us long to understand this. Experientially it takes us forever to really, deeply get it though.
However, if we develop a very clear understanding that a romantic relationship is not permanent and we have no illusions that it is, that it will not fill the void we are trying to fill and that things like 'romance' are transitory emotional reactions with no substance then we aren't ignorant about the relationship and attachment has nothing to attach to.
In practice it is EXTREMELY likely we will form attachments. We will experience pleasant sensations when our partner says or does such and such and delusional thinking sets in and before we know it we are experiencing unpleasant sensations when our partner doesn't say or do such and such anymore.
The way I look at it is that this is a very rich field in which to practice the dharma. So much opportunity for mindfulness to recognize the attachments and melt them away resulting in a much purer form of love. A love that fully respects the partner, doesn't place impossible expectations on the partner, accepts the partner fully just as s/he is right now, wants nothing but unending happiness for the partner and appreciates the miracle that is the partner for as long as the partnership lasts before it's impermanence is fully made real by death.
To say that one cannot participate in a romantic relationship without attachment is the same as saying one can't attain enlightenment. Both may be difficult, but both are attainable.
It seems that the vast majority of people approach intimate relationships with the idea that they will derive pleasure and happiness from them (and give back, of course). While it's clear to me that you can aid your partner in their search for realization, how about other, more superficial forms of pleasure/happiness? Should you just make an effort not to attach to those feelings, that is, just let them arise and pass away? If so, then it certainly seems to take a lot of the appeal out of being in an intimate relationship. It seems more like being in an intimate relationship is like a pressure cooker, as opposed to a place of refuge. And if so, if we're not ready for the pressure cooker, then wouldn't it in fact be easier to avoid intimate relationships, since they make us less susceptible to the charms of samsara?
Yes, and that is why so many partnerships end, painfully. That is why couples end up at a counselor's office each accusing the other of being the antichrist completely ignorant that they are the source of their own suffering.
All emotional reactions (what you are calling superficial pleasure/happiness) whether perceived as pleasant or unpleasant are just that - emotional reactions. I underline the word reaction for a reason. We don't choose our reactions. By (my) definition a reaction is involuntary. A stimulus is experienced and such and such happens. A reaction is like pressing a key on the keyboard and the computer reacts in the way it is programmed to. It doesn't have any choice. In the same way we as humans have a tendency toward emotional reactivity. Our partner says a word we perceive as unkind and we experience an unpleasant emotional reaction. Our partner says something we perceive as kind and we experience a pleasant emotional reaction. Both reactions are dukkha. They are the result of our not perceiving reality correctly.
The cultivation of mindfulness results in our 'waking up' as these reactions occur. At first we perceive that an unkind or kind word has been said and the emotional reaction takes place, but we 'wake up' at this point and having woken up we can now choose how to respond. As mindfulness penetrates deeper into our emotional reactivity it starts to wake us up before we have interpreted the unkind or kind word as kind or unkind. Now we are starting to see reality as it actually is rather than as our ignorance previously told us it was.
What does any of the above have to do with your question? It explains why romantic partnerships tend to produce more pain than anything else in most cases and those relationships typically end or continue, but fail to provide much more than misery for all involved.
This isn't a necessary state of affairs, however. If our motivation for entering into a relationship, romantic/sexual or otherwise is to derive any pleasure whatsoever, then it will lead to dukkha. The satisfaction to be had from relationships is found by letting go of our delusions, our ignorant expectations and by fully enjoying the wonderful mystery that our partner is, just as s/he is right now. If you are unable to enjoy your partner *exactly* as s/he is right now then you are suffering from emotional reactivity. Unmindfully allowing external stimuli to create emotional states that you then react to without even realizing what happened. It's pretty normal, hence all the suffering intimate relationships tend to produce
If your motivation for entering into an intimate relationship is to have a refuge then your relationship will end up being a living hell and you will have a strong desire to get the hell out of it as you begin to realize it doesn't and can't provide you with what you are seeking. Your refuge is inside yourself. Seek it anywhere else and you will find only dukkha. If you are able to let go of this motivation then you will find the refuge you are seeking.
The point saying that the population is not all Buddhist, that is clear but if everyone were to become monastics without sexual relations in a relativly short period then the human population would die out, it almost certainly will not happen however but still if it did, would that mean cyclic existence can only contain in animal form?
At the risk of repeating, the fact that the whole human race would become monastic and cease to procreate is just too abstract to consider. Furthermore, you confine your too-abstract considerations to planet Earth in this dimension. Who's to say we wouldn't take incarnation in another universe in another dimension and continue to deal with karma in that scenario? I think this shows that your speculation is too narrow, and that it is indeed just idle speculation because there's no way of knowing.
Besides, again, and repeating myself, humans have been procreating as homo sapiens for almost two million years. Why would they all become monastics and stop procreating now?
Sorry if I sound irritated, but this is repetition of what has already been posted in this thread, and responded to. I take responsibility for the fact that it's early for me and I need another cup of coffee, but you get my drift.
And loving them the correct way is YOU wanting THEM to be happy, regardless of your own self centred wishes.
So, instead of taking, you're giving.
You need to recognise they are just a fellow human like yourself seeking happiness and trying to stay away from suffering, you need to take their feelings into account and not be selfish, as long as your motivations are pure and you are sharing your life with them equally, then there is no attachment as it were but obviously the relationship will differ slightly from how you react with others but not to the point where only her/his feelings and mine matter. There will always be a bit more suffering when your in a relationship with someone such as who should get the TV remote :P, but if done properly this suffering is minute.
Chris
A relationship is healthy when we can enjoy being with each other, but do not hold the views of attachment that, "If this were to end, I would just die! I can't live without this person! I can't be happy without this person!" Yes, you can. Relationships come and go in various forms, and romantic ones, in the unfortunate event that they fall apart, never leave a person physically crippled or paralyzed. Just enjoy the relationship and the other person but know that you will be just as happy without them. Of course you will endure pain and suffering in a breakup, but know that you will be able to hold that pain and let go of the attachments that cause the suffering.
Just a couple of clarifications.
You say: "The satisfaction to be had from relationships is found by letting go of our delusions, our ignorant expectations and by fully enjoying the wonderful mystery that our partner is, just as s/he is right now. If you are unable to enjoy your partner *exactly* as s/he is right now then you are suffering from emotional reactivity."
I was wondering if you could elaborate a bit more on this point. I ask because I find it hard to ground this in real life. For example, in any relationship there is bound to be annoyance and anger as a result of a partner's behavior, speech, etc. So how is one supposed to enjoy these types of situations?
You also say: "If your motivation for entering into an intimate relationship is to have a refuge then your relationship will end up being a living hell and you will have a strong desire to get the hell out of it as you begin to realize it doesn't and can't provide you with what you are seeking."
Wouldn't it depend on what type of refuge one is seeking? For example, one can't deny that there are toxic people in this world, and there are people who are more healthy. Wouldn't it be wise to choose people who are more healthy to be in a relationship with, and thus be more protected from the insanity of the world and those that make it a more insane place? A sort of Sangha of two?
There will be no anger or annoyance as a result of the partner's actions or words, there may be anger or annoyance as a result of our own mind not perceiving correctly. In this case that we designate this person as 'partner' is irrelevant. We either project our mind objects onto other objects or we watch our minds and see the objects that arise and pass in it.
Sure, except who is sane? If you can find a sane person, why would they be interested in you?
A really disappointing thing to consider: Sometimes 2 people are perfect for each other because their interests and world view are so closely aligned. 10 years later their interests and world view are completely different. Where is the refuge now?
Here is a tasty 'factoid' for you. Ask *any* relationship counselor this question: "What percentage of the time will 2 people in a healthy, close relationship disagree?" 95+% of the time will be the answer. Where is the refuge in that?
I just typed what was on my mind at the time of writing, it occured to me that if everyone did become monastic, not saying that it will etc, what impact that might have which would be end of human population on planet earth if it occured fast. No body does know ultimatly just like you say but amused me that if everyone were monastic it might remove the human pop and put us into lower classes of being, if rebirth were to be true. Nevermind.
OP, I always thought similarly to you, but I didn't feel like I could give up the hope for finding an awesome "relationship". I felt like that was too much to give up. But I stayed on the path, my views changed little by little, and at some point in the past month, I suddenly realized that I no longer felt that way. I felt like I could give it up finally! So I did!! Wahooooo!!!!
I guess there's still this fear of getting attached or derailing the way of life I'm living now (college, selflessness, volunteering, etc.) because derailment tends to happen when I get in these unhealthy relationships. I think I'm ready to try for something better though... I am thinking much clearer now.
Anyway, good thread. I just wanted to share my experiences with the suffering caused by attachment and possibly my fears too.
To clarify, I avoid females as much as possible now. My enemy now is the karma of 18 years' worth of mind conditioning. So much veneration of female human bodies in my past that I am now suffering the consequences of! So in other words, what I have done (renouncing the aspiration for a relationship and sex) is only one step. I still have much progress to make! But I have faith because I have seen that progress can indeed be made and it is good!