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.
Romance and children as sources of happiness
Hello there 
I'm new to the forum. Fan of philosophy and just recently discovered buddhism and was surprised to how much I agree with Buddha.
So, his philosophy jives with me to a great extent, but then I found a loophole.
Now, the greeks made the distinction between Agape (brother love, true selfless love) and Eros (passionate love, with sensual desire and longing). I'm a big believer in Agape and it's a source of great contentment to me, but I realized I don't want to become a monk or to completely give up on romance to dedicate myself 100% to a life of selflessness (which is something I considered before).
So I guess my questions are :
1 - how does one reconcile romantic relationships with "no attachment"?
2 - what about the love we have for our kids? there's plenty of attachment there.
And something that's probably basic, but :
3 - if we aim for the death of the ego, what is there to feel contentment or peace or happiness in the end? If am to kill my ego, surely I might as well give up on my ideas of having a carreer and a family right?
Thanks in advance I have a lot more specific questions regarding romance, but I'll probably save them for another thread.
I'm new to the forum. Fan of philosophy and just recently discovered buddhism and was surprised to how much I agree with Buddha.So, his philosophy jives with me to a great extent, but then I found a loophole.
Now, the greeks made the distinction between Agape (brother love, true selfless love) and Eros (passionate love, with sensual desire and longing). I'm a big believer in Agape and it's a source of great contentment to me, but I realized I don't want to become a monk or to completely give up on romance to dedicate myself 100% to a life of selflessness (which is something I considered before).
So I guess my questions are :
1 - how does one reconcile romantic relationships with "no attachment"?
2 - what about the love we have for our kids? there's plenty of attachment there.
And something that's probably basic, but :
3 - if we aim for the death of the ego, what is there to feel contentment or peace or happiness in the end? If am to kill my ego, surely I might as well give up on my ideas of having a carreer and a family right?
Thanks in advance
I have a lot more specific questions regarding romance, but I'll probably save them for another thread. 0
Comments
Relationships break up.People die.This s the way things are.In buddhism this is the concept that we are talking about.Attachment brings sufering.When a relationship breaks down people hurt.When a loved one dies,people hurt.
There is nothing wrong in wanting a career and a family,but do you know for sure you will achieve this.If you can hope for these things,but not get bummed out if it goes wrong then that is great.Unfortunately for many people when the things they want,they can't have,or the things they have,they can't keep then all sorts of un necessary suffering takes place.
I hope this helps a little.
With metta
Realizing we are all going to die and be parted from those we love etc....Everyone logically realizes that. The question is would a Buddha be able to love his wife and child in the same way a normal person does? Why want a family, if it's only a half-want, and you wouldn't be bummed out if you couldn't get it?
I believe the 1st Noble Truth is badly translated into something along the lines of 'Everything is suffering', but it's obviously not the case; the correct word was Dukha which has different levels of meaning.
I believe the Buddha recognised joy, but things like romance and children are impermanent (Dukha?), therefore inherently flawed in that they cannot provide permanent happiness. For example, romances can turn to miserable relationships and children can bring trouble and/or die.
I've read that Buddhism is neither pessimistic, nor optimistic, only realistic, and I'm equally sure someone will come along and correct the information I've just typed.
Within Tibetan Buddhism, the ideal is not of being aloof and uninvolved but rather that of the bodhisattva who has deep compassion and empathy with all beings. When it comes to children, it is not that one should feel nothing for them but rather that you should feel the same deep love and concern that you do for them for all beings everywhere. This is obviously a work in progress for most of us! :-)
The fact of the matter is, real compassion is constant heartbreak. You see those that you love constantly performing actions that will lead to their eventual if not immediate suffering. This is not a path for those with small hearts. There are definite parallels between Agape and Maitri. Also, within vajrayana buddhism, Eros is not discarded but rather used as an engine to power realization. The Dharma is vast. There are paths within it for most dispositions.
Best of luck with your explorations!
With attachment: I love you and want you to make me happy.
With no attachment: I love you and want you to be happy.
2 - what about the love we have for our kids? there's plenty of attachment there.
I'm not a parent so I'm not getting into it.
3 - if we aim for the death of the ego, what is there to feel contentment or peace or happiness in the end? If am to kill my ego, surely I might as well give up on my ideas of having a carreer and a family right?
Ego is not a Buddhist concept. You don't aim for the death of the Ego. :P
You can have many aims within Buddhism, one of which is nirvana, the cessation of suffering through the extinction of craving. That cessation is brought about through the practice of the noble eightfold path as a whole (or other exposition of the path).
If you dwell only on seeing the selfless nature of phenomena before you have covered the basics you will just be deceiving yourself, that is, you will start a process of shutting down to reality that is far too common: "oh I failed a test and feel like crap but it's because I fail to see the selflessness of phenomena, and not the obvious consequence of not studying".
Thanks. I watched it, and it was quite interesting.
And yet, as sefless as the love for your child can be...it's probably the most naturally attached of human relationships. The buddha's story is probably not the best example to learn how to deal with our own kids.
Ooh, that sounds interesting. Got any interesting links? What's the general idea?
How would you describe the state of not clinging? Can you give any concrete example of how it has lead you to FEEL differently? I guess my problem is I don't have an real life examples that would be analogous to deep love without attachment.
I think buddhism can often become quite theoretical and not able to allure people making non-attachment sound like a cool thing.
No offense but I find this a bit too convenient. If there's one thing that has drawn me to buddhism is that you don't have to make this BIG commitment to it in order to recognize its benefits.
That sounds perfect. But aren't there lots of buddhists claiming that it is all about killing the ego...killing the self...that we are to regard it as the ultimate hindrance?
I'm all about abstract thought, but I'd really like a concrete example of how this is possible, and how it feels.
Killing the ego is mostly just a misconception.
Drill the dharma into our skull and obey it like a programmed robot?
So you might still ask, why would such a person want to do anything at all? Since such a person would be very compassionate and kind, he/she would very likely get his/her inspiration from and for being there for others.
Think of Buddha. What did he do for the rest of 'his' life after reaching enlightenment and why? Did he want fame, power and such? ._.
Fame doesn't interest me, nor does power. Epicurus (the greek philosopher) said happiness came from friends, freedom and an examined life (he also believed in ataraxia, real "pleasure" doesn't come from sensorial pleasure but from peace of mind "a-taraxia" - undisturbed (mind)). This philosophy jives with me quite a lot.
I'm at a point my life where I need to decide what career I want, where I want to go, how I want to live.
Buddhism doesn't require a monastic life to have its merit. And if buddhism wasn't relevant in today's society and context...it wouldn't be of much use. So while I can appreciate what an enlightened mind might choose to do with his life, and perfectly understand the motivation behind it, I also know most of us here are not aiming for nirvana, but to strike a balance between mindfulness and a "normal" life.
The problem is assumption of an unchanging subjective essence or experiencer at the core of bodymind.
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset" class=alt2>Originally Posted by andyrobyn
In discussions I have found people tend towards believing that if we attempt to dispense with clinging within relationships, one won’t have any relationships. This has not been what I have found to happen. Generally the clinging present in the relationship can be understood as a source of the problems that arise in relationships. As one gets more clarity and develops the ability to be more free of clinging in the relationship, the relationship becomes healthier and in my experience deeper, richer, and less problematic due to the understanding.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
" How would you describe the state of not clinging? Can you give any concrete example of how it has lead you to FEEL differently? I guess my problem is I don't have an real life examples that would be analogous to deep love without attachment.
I think buddhism can often become quite theoretical and not able to allure people making non-attachment sound like a cool thing. "
Hi Epicurus,
It is about correct understanding - seeing and accepting the reality of relationships.
So to try and answer your very valid question not clinging isn't something I experience as a state of being which leads to different feelings arising.
What drew me to practice was the understandings in Buddhist teachings about suffering and the teachings in relation to dukkha make a lot of sense to me.
If we know the nature of suffering, we can see it in everything we experience.
When dukkha arises we can investigate to see the causes of its arising. Then once we know that, we can practice to remove those causes. Suffering, origination, cessation - in order to bring it to cessation we have to understand the path of practice.
Clinging in relationships, for example expecting our families, friends, children to stay the same will possibly lead us to become disappointed, angry and sad if they change. Seeing change as inevitable and part of the life cycle helps us embrace the change rather than fight it ... it is still sad and we can still feel disappointed or angry as well as feel great happiness and joy. Hope that helps a bit.
I don't think Buddhism distinguishes between neurotic attachment and simple attachment. Neurotic attachment is recognized as unhealthily in conventional thinking about family as well.
Attachment is attachment, when we are attached we suffer loss. One way of looking at the Bodhisattva vow is the willingness to engage (ie attach to) the cares of the world and in so doing accept the suffering that entails. Accepting that suffering as being just, hints at the deeper equanimity of the vow.
Family and love hurts.
In other words whatever happens. Whether you pass out drunk, you have sex, you get in a fight. All of those negative things we try to prevent (well the sex isn't exactly negative but thats a different topic). But should one of those negative things happen we also practice with the less desirable feelings and emotions that come up. We can practice with them.
Insight into our body and minds shows us what happens with aversion and craving. The stress and so forth. We learn that our addictions and agressions do not actually lead to cessation of stress. More importantly we learn to relate to the stress in a direct way. When samsara is seen directly it is just feeling/sensitivity and it becomes seen clearly as nirvana.
I find this topic easier to understand in light of craving and aggression and delusion (or illusion). Those things people know what they are and they don't want them. Even when its your lover or kids you still don't want those things. You want love, support, and togetherness and its easy to see you won't find those in craving agresssion and delusion.