Relationships and Buddhism

meh_

Surely, having a meaningful relationship with a partner involves attatchments that will hinder one on the path to enlightenment?

Dakini

Yup. That's why monks aren't supposed to have them. But being in a relationship for a lay practitioner could be a good way to practice non-attachment. Practice not getting too attached to the partner, so that if they leave, you're happy they've found something they feel is better, and you just move on, unperturbed.

aMatt

meh_,

I wouldn't consider it prudent to describe relationships as a hindrance. They do present unique opportunities to see our attachments from different angles.

I remember a story about a monk who rigorously defended his bowl, fearful it would be taken from him. Or, imagine the unhappiness that a monk might experience if his sangha burned. No matter what we consider home, there is the chance that our acceptance and understanding of impermanence will become uprooted. That we will cling.

What I've noticed in my practice is that I don't consider the relationship I have as "mine", nor do I consider her "mine", but rather I see us both as accepting of our mutual desires. We know that for us both to be happy, there are certain agreements that must be upheld by the two of us. Monogamy, both being willing to listen and see the other, dedication to work, etc. They don't become "static rules" but rather simple resonances that are understood as something we both need to maintain a romantic intimacy.

I smile when I hear of people who consider relationships as distracting. It is like people in the desert, when considering those who live in temperate climates, to imagine that rain must be full of confusion and distraction. Or, people in the arctic, when considering those who live in the desert, that heat must be a source of distraction to their practice.

Its never in the landscape. We sit and work with what we have, and then we sit and work with what we have, and then we sit and work with what we have.

With warmth,

Matt

meh_

Yup. That's why monks aren't supposed to have them. But being in a relationship for a lay practitioner could be a good way to practice non-attachment. Practice not getting too attached to the partner, so that if they leave, you're happy they've found something they feel is better, and you just move on, unperturbed.

Hmm okay, that sounds reasonable, but surely its still an attachment. I've yet to fully get my head around a lot of the buddhist concepts - but surely non-attachment in a relationship would be kind of odd.

Dakini

You'd think so. But the way I've seen it discussed on this forum, is that they say you enjoy the presence of your partner without any expectations as to the outcome, that's the key thing. So you're not setting up scenarios in your mind about how you'll be ask a couple, or even IF you'll be a couple beyond the next week or month, whatever. Needless to say, it's a challenging practice. It's easy to have no attachments if you live a sheltered life in a monastery. Lay life is where the real challenge is. There are some old threads on this topic, I don't know if you can find 'em.

patbb

agree with first 2 reply.
This situation present to you more opportunities for attachments.

Pretty much all situations will present many opportunities for attachments, some more than others but weather we do get attached or not depend on us.

Hmm okay, that sounds reasonable, but surely its still an attachment. I've yet to fully get my head around a lot of the buddhist concepts - but surely non-attachment in a relationship would be kind of odd.

why would it be odd?

it is not the person that you get attached to; only the fear of losing such person (you never possessed that person to begin with anyway).

non-attachment means you could live with that person without the jealousy, possessiveness, fear etc...

Epicurus

@aMatt: That kinda makes me wonder...if it doesn't change anything really....why would a buddhist want a romantic relationship? How can one make such a decision. Or is it that people really are just brainwashed into thinking one has to have a romantic relationship in order to be happy?

zidangus

Well as a lay Buddhist, I have chosen to accept and live with unavoidable attachment to a lot of things, my wife, all of my family etc etc. I just try to become unattached to things that I know are not important, such as materialistic things. The important point is, I am not a monk I am a lay Buddhist, and hence I know that being a lay Buddhist I will not achieve enlightenment with this life. I just try to live my life following Buddha's teachings aimed at lay Buddhists, which I believe gives me all the knowledge and wisdom to live a content life, and whatever happens when my time's up (and I have my on views on this if you read my other posts), well I'll have no regrets.


Metta to all sentient beings

Dakini

I came across a reference to a suttric text that said lay followers of the Buddha did reach enlightenment. It's been mentioned on this forum, too. Don't write Enlightenment off completely, z.

I kinda thought people's sex drives propelled them into romantic relationships. But you're right, it doesn't need to be romantic. No-strings-attached relationships do happen.

zenff

meh_,
...
I remember a story about a monk who rigorously defended his bowl, fearful it would be taken from him. Or, imagine the unhappiness that a monk might experience if his sangha burned. No matter what we consider home, there is the chance that our acceptance and understanding of impermanence will become uprooted. That we will cling.
...
Matt

Yes, everything is a hindrance.
Trying to be free from attachments, and clinging to (what we think is) the path are hindrances.
And all explanations are hindrances too; by the way.

In the words of Vimalakirti:
“Reverend Subhuti, do not fear these words, and pick up your bowl…
The nature of all things is like illusion, like a magical incarnation. So you should not fear them. Why? All words also have that nature, and thus the wise are not attached to words, nor do they fear them. Why? All language does not ultimately exist, except as liberation. The nature of all things is liberation”

The nature of all things is liberation.
So when we see through, nothing is a hindrance after all.

aMatt

@aMatt: That kinda makes me wonder...if it doesn't change anything really....why would a buddhist want a romantic relationship? How can one make such a decision. Or is it that people really are just brainwashed into thinking one has to have a romantic relationship in order to be happy?

Its not that it doesn't change *anything*, its just that it doesn't change the nature of the practice.

Are people brainwashed into thinking that strawberries taste good? Sort of... we do have biological influences that make certain nutrients more attractive to us, but does that mean we should work not to enjoy our food? Perhaps accepting that things do taste good is part of letting go of the "quest to become enlightened" as though we need to beat our bodies into shape in order to uphold some state of mind.

I am in a relationship because I enjoy it. Do you think its allowed to be that simple?

With warmth,

Matt

zidangus

Thanks Dakini, what I mean is that my Buddhist practice does not have enough commitment or understanding to get to enlightenment in this life. If I was really committed to achieving this in this lifetime then I would become a monk. So as a lay Buddhist I'm kind of stating that yes I believe and have faith in Buddha's teachings, but no I have not got enough courage, faith or commitment to give up everything dear to me and lead a monastic life. So I know that enlightenment is not going to happen for me in this life while I lack these things. I hope in another life my life force (or whatever other members like to call it) can find a sentient being who can find the Buddha's Dharma and has the courage, faith, commitment and understanding of the Dharma to find enlightenment. Until then, I am content to be a lay Buddhist trying my best to live the way the Buddha taught lay people to live their life.

Metta to all sentient beings

Dakini

Surely, having a meaningful relationship with a partner involves attatchments that will hinder one on the path to enlightenment?

To switch gears, here, for a minute, there are plenty of lamas who are married. They don't seem to be worried about their relationship being an obstacle to their practice or attainment of enlightenment.

meh_

Hmm so basically, a monastic life - is to try and remove all of these attachments and potential for attachments, and devote ones entire life to the quest for enlightenment?

zenff

All life is.

Talisman

In a recent article in Tricylce Magazine, there is an interview with John Welwood, former director of the East/West psychology program at the California Institute of Integral Studies and current associate editor of the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology. He discusses at length the concept of "spiritual bypassing," where a person uses spiritual practice as an excuse to "avoid facing unresolved emotional issues, psychological wounds, and unfinished developmental tasks."

Specifically, he discusses western Buddhist sanghas and communities where people create distance and cultivate a lack of empathy toward others because they are unable to accept human needs for love, acceptance, companionship, community, and healthy bonds. It is natural for humans, both children and adults, to seek comfort and love from others. Healthy familial ties and productive relationships create a stronger sense of compassion and empathy toward others. Even monastic communities share a sense of brotherhood (or sisterhood) and the members therein develop strong bonds of companionship and love toward one-another.

There is nothing wrong with engaging in a healthy relationship, and for most people it is necessary for developing oneself and for strenghting one's resolve in the face of difficult challenges and emotional crises.

Some quotes from the article:

"So how do we reconcile the ideal of nonattachment with the need for human attachment?

Good Question. We need a larger perspective that can recognize and include two different tracks of human development--which we might call growing up and waking up [...] If we hold a perspective that includes the two developmental tracks, then we will not use our notions of absolute truth to belittle relative, personal feelings and needs for connection. Even though personal feelings and needs may have no solid or ultimate reality, shunting them aside is likely to cause major psychological problems."


"[Avoidant attachment] types tend to be dismissive of other people's needs
because they're dismissive of their own needs.

Might this account for some of the relational problems in our sangha communities?

Definitely. It causes people to feel justified in not respecting each other's feelings and needs. Not surprisingly, "need" often becomes a dirty word in spiritual communities.

People don't feel free to say what they want?

Right. You don't say what you want because you don't want to be seen as needy. You're trying to be nonattached. But that is like unripe fruit trying to detach itself from a branch instead of receiving what it needs--which will allow it to naturally ripen and let go. When our spiritual practice is way ahead of our human development, we don't fully ripen."

aMatt

Hmm so basically, a monastic life - is to try and remove all of these attachments and potential for attachments, and devote ones entire life to the quest for enlightenment?

No, I don't think this is really the case. The 4th noble truth isn't about the removal of attachments, but right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration. Attachments fall away as we practice, they're not thrown away with disgust.

I feel that well practicing monks and lay folk are simply steadfast in their focus on the 8 fold path. Monastic life can be less distracting for some, and that's all.

patbb

"So how do we reconcile the ideal of nonattachment with the need for human attachment?

Good Question. We need a larger perspective that can recognize and include two different tracks of human development--which we might call growing up and waking up [...] If we hold a perspective that includes the two developmental tracks, then we will not use our notions of absolute truth to belittle relative, personal feelings and needs for connection. Even though personal feelings and needs may have no solid or ultimate reality, shunting them aside is likely to cause major psychological problems."

again, this is simply a bad interpretation of the concept of non-attachment.

There is no need to reconcile the ideal of nonattachment with the need for human attachment; there is no need for human attachement as such thing do not exist.

Non attachment means :

it is not the person that you get attached to; only the fear of losing such person (you never possessed that person to begin with anyway).

non-attachment means you could live with that person without the jealousy, possessiveness, fear etc...

Talisman

Everyone is a critic I suppose. I don't think you understood what was being expressed by that quote or what I wrote. /shrug

meh_

So basically: We should live life as it is dealt to us, facing it according to the 5 precepts, being mindful all the while - practicing meditation etc. to further our spiritual development at the same time.

meh_

'But that is like unripe fruit trying to detach itself from a branch instead of receiving what it needs--which will allow it to naturally ripen and let go. When our spiritual practice is way ahead of our human development, we don't fully ripen." '

That is interesting, could someone here please help to explain this? Im not sure what is meant by spiritual practice being ahead of human dev.

Talisman

If someone is able to enter deep and profound states of meditation but has not taken care to foster social, intellectual, and emotional strength and vitality then the fruits of their efforts will be naught.

patbb

I don't think you understood what was being expressed by that quote or what I wrote./shrug

a fantastic way to discuss; differ slightly from the usual examination of arguments, points, solutions etc... but interesting nonetheless

meh_

Hmm okay, I understand that. When does one know when they are ready (human development wise)?

patbb

If someone is able to enter deep and profound states of meditation but has not taken care to foster social, intellectual, and emotional strength and vitality then the fruits of their efforts will be naught.

how would his efforts be naught; he will simply be an person who can enter deep meditations with limited social skills.

How to deal with emotions is one of the thing that get taken care of with his practice.

DhammaDhatu

Surely, having a meaningful relationship with a partner involves attatchments that will hinder one on the path to enlightenment?

The Buddha taught two paths, one for monks and another for laypeople.

You can read the Buddha's teachings about relationships here:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.055.than.html

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html

http://www.mahidol.ac.th/budsir/Contents.html

With metta

Epicurus

@aMatt: That kinda makes me wonder...if it doesn't change anything really....why would a buddhist want a romantic relationship? How can one make such a decision. Or is it that people really are just brainwashed into thinking one has to have a romantic relationship in order to be happy?

Its not that it doesn't change *anything*, its just that it doesn't change the nature of the practice.

Are people brainwashed into thinking that strawberries taste good? Sort of... we do have biological influences that make certain nutrients more attractive to us, but does that mean we should work not to enjoy our food? Perhaps accepting that things do taste good is part of letting go of the "quest to become enlightened" as though we need to beat our bodies into shape in order to uphold some state of mind.

I am in a relationship because I enjoy it. Do you think its allowed to be that simple?

That's not what I meant. I'm not saying relationships aren't enjoyable. I'm talking about happiness. Where I was getting is that this need for enduring long term romantic relationships is to some extent culturally learned period.

I've just always found it interesting, when and WHY would be a good idea to choose a relationship from a buddhist perspective. When is it skillful I wonder.

I have nothing against relationships, but I think I realized we tend to use them to mask a lot of our problems. I believe one needs to be happy first on his one in order to be happy with someone else. And I just wonder when it's skillful to enter a romantic relationship with someone.

hermitwin

A partner leads to more confusion. Now you have 2 egos to contend with.
People get bored of each other. Scientist found that 'being in love' state
where your brain is filled love hormones last about 3 mths.
However, if you have a kind understanding partner, you are lucky.
Most Buddhist I know are already 'stuck' with spouses & children by the time
they get serious about Buddhism.
I dont know if they really mean it but many say, I will become a monk when
my kids are adults.

hermitwin

'relationships is to some extent culturally learned period.'
definitely.

Dakini

Good post, Talisman. I've noticed some sanghas seem to be full of traumatized people. Maybe that's where the "groupie" mentality springs from, in part. I think that's why some practitioners aren't into the "sangha scene". Sad, kind of. But I'm happy to hear from some members that good, emotionally healthy and educational sanghas do exist.

Tammy

All life is.

that's what I was thinking ... non-attachment is truly tested when a person practices with those they love the most - their spouse, parents, children ...

Dakini

non-attachment is truly tested when a person practices with those they love the most - their spouse, parents, children ...

Lay life therefore presents more opportunities to develop and deepen one's practice,IMO If one doesn't allow oneself to get distracted, that is.

Tammy

non-attachment is truly tested when a person practices with those they love the most - their spouse, parents, children ...

Lay life therefore presents more opportunities to develop and deepen one's practice. IMO

yes. that is also the opinion of some in the orthodox churches, where they have equal reverence for both the monk and the lay person. things are often upside-down from what we expect, in that secular life has a way of bringing spiritual benefits.

Dakini

yes. that is also the opinion of some in the orthodox churches, where they have equal reverence for both the monk and the lay person.

That's such a sensible position--I'm SO impressed!
And welcome, BTW.

aMatt

That's not what I meant. I'm not saying relationships aren't enjoyable. I'm talking about happiness. Where I was getting is that this need for enduring long term romantic relationships is to some extent culturally learned period.

I've just always found it interesting, when and WHY would be a good idea to choose a relationship from a buddhist perspective. When is it skillful I wonder.

I have nothing against relationships, but I think I realized we tend to use them to mask a lot of our problems. I believe one needs to be happy first on his one in order to be happy with someone else. And I just wonder when it's skillful to enter a romantic relationship with someone.

I thought I was answering this question in the metaphor of the strawberry, but perhaps I wasn't being clear. If one is looking for a relationship to make them happy, they are displaying codependency. It is possible to be happy, unrelated to the relationship, and enjoy a relationship as well.

Joyousness is a fruit of generosity, rather than any other source. Dependant happiness is what fades with each sunset.

compassionate_warrior

I thought I was answering this question in the metaphor of the strawberry, but perhaps I wasn't being clear. If one is looking for a relationship to make them happy, they are displaying codependency. It is possible to be happy, unrelated to the relationship, and enjoy a relationship as well.

Joyousness is a fruit of generosity, rather than any other source. Dependant happiness is what fades with each sunset.

Hey, aMatt, when you decide to clarify, you're REALLY clear! Many people have tried to say this on different threads at different times, but no one has expressed it as clearly as you, here. This is such an important point!

Epicurus

That's not what I meant. I'm not saying relationships aren't enjoyable. I'm talking about happiness. Where I was getting is that this need for enduring long term romantic relationships is to some extent culturally learned period.

I've just always found it interesting, when and WHY would be a good idea to choose a relationship from a buddhist perspective. When is it skillful I wonder.

I have nothing against relationships, but I think I realized we tend to use them to mask a lot of our problems. I believe one needs to be happy first on his one in order to be happy with someone else. And I just wonder when it's skillful to enter a romantic relationship with someone.

I thought I was answering this question in the metaphor of the strawberry, but perhaps I wasn't being clear. If one is looking for a relationship to make them happy, they are displaying codependency. It is possible to be happy, unrelated to the relationship, and enjoy a relationship as well.

Joyousness is a fruit of generosity, rather than any other source. Dependant happiness is what fades with each sunset.

Yes, I very much agree with that. Still, I don't mean to pry but you could give me an example then of how a happy person comes to be in a romantic relationship if they are already content with being by themselves. Is it a rational choice? Is it infatuation? Is it limited to just one partner? Unconditional love is boundless...and perhaps the true source of happiness in this world....so I've always wondered how one chooses to be in a relationship without wanting to get anything in return.

yiming

To switch gears, here, for a minute, there are plenty of lamas who are married. They don't seem to be worried about their relationship being an obstacle to their practice or attainment of enlightenment.

Maybe those lamas are not attached to their wives.

Dakini

Maybe those lamas are not attached to their wives.

From what I hear, many aren't.

aMatt

Yes, I very much agree with that. Still, I don't mean to pry but you could give me an example then of how a happy person comes to be in a romantic relationship if they are already content with being by themselves. Is it a rational choice? Is it infatuation? Is it limited to just one partner? Unconditional love is boundless...and perhaps the true source of happiness in this world....so I've always wondered how one chooses to be in a relationship without wanting to get anything in return.

Its a choice, certainly. I can't speak for everyone, but in my case I did not find my partner out of craving, but as a discovery of wonderful resonance and common interests.

I talk to people and connect with them because it feels right to do so, and in the case of my partner, she sang back in a way that was delightful.

Dakini

I talk to people and connect with them because it feels right.

There aren't enough people like you in the world (or in the US, anyway), aMatt! How refreshing!

DhammaDhatu

Its not that it doesn't change *anything*, its just that it doesn't change the nature of the practice.

when one is not in relationship, one must overcome loneliness then fear

not being in relationship changes the practice alot

and the bliss of non-sensuality (jhana) is not a desert

"the practice" is more than just virtue (for a renunciate or for one who sees unsatisfactoriness)

not being in relationship changes everything

:om:

DhammaDhatu

They don't become "static rules" but rather simple resonances that are understood as something we both need to maintain a romantic intimacy.

With warmth

Plenty of "warmth" there, for sure

Bhikkhus, all is burning. Burning with what?

Burning with the fire of lust, with the fire of hate, with the fire of delusion.

I say it is burning with birth, aging and death, with sorrows, with lamentations, with pains, with griefs, with despairs.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.028.nymo.html

Epicurus

Its a choice, certainly. I can't speak for everyone, but in my case I did not find my partner out of craving, but as a discovery of wonderful resonance and common interests.

I talk to people and connect with them because it feels right to do so, and in the case of my partner, she sang back in a way that was delightful.

Hmmm...I never connected with people with a feeling of wrongness to it. Wouldn't you say a craving arose when you discovered that wonderful resonance? Isn't that what commonly happens (at least with half-mature people)? Isn't it still a desire to be with someone else...a desire to be more than just friends....you did "fall" for her too, right?

aMatt

Plenty of "warmth" there, for sure

Bhikkhus, all is burning. Burning with what?

Burning with the fire of lust, with the fire of hate, with the fire of delusion.

I say it is burning with birth, aging and death, with sorrows, with lamentations, with pains, with griefs, with despairs.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.028.nymo.html

Ha! Still up to old tricks. You're like the guy that pulls others pants down in a crowded hallway, DD. Certainly a revealer of the implied, as I am not free of suffering, but need it be said here? Sure, your words help cultivate humility and yet, you're kind of an ass. Careful your odd patterns don't get you banned again! You say lots of helpful things!

With love,

Matt

DhammaDhatu

You're like the guy that pulls others pants down in a crowded hallway, DD...you're kind of an ass....

Talisman

I'd say that philosophers and poets have tried their hands at the nature, purpose, and cause of romantic love since the dawn of time. This is one of those topics and experiences that can only be understood by those involved, for no two relationships are ever exactly the same.

aMatt

Its a choice, certainly. I can't speak for everyone, but in my case I did not find my partner out of craving, but as a discovery of wonderful resonance and common interests.

I talk to people and connect with them because it feels right to do so, and in the case of my partner, she sang back in a way that was delightful.

Hmmm...I never connected with people with a feeling of wrongness to it. Wouldn't you say a craving arose when you discovered that wonderful resonance? Isn't that what commonly happens (at least with half-mature people)? Isn't it still a desire to be with someone else...a desire to be more than just friends....you did "fall" for her too, right?

Would you say your body has a "craving" or a "desire" to eat when it is hungry? I have lots of desires, such as maintaining my relationship with my family, helping free humankind from patterns of suffering, hugging more often, cultivating stronger friendships with others. I don't lament when they are not fulfilled... as I did not fall into a state of restlessness when I was alone.

I suppose I'm also not really "questing for purity" though. I just notice my suffering, watch it come and go, do my best to help others, and cultivate mindfulness. This has been a practice that certainly has vibrant parts in connection to my relationship with my partner, but doesn't change much in its formula... the 8FP isn't just a monastic lifestyle.

With warmth,

Matt

aMatt

You're like the guy that pulls others pants down in a crowded hallway, DD...you're kind of an ass....

Epicurus

Would you say your body has a "craving" or a "desire" to eat when it is hungry? I have lots of desires, such as maintaining my relationship with my family, helping free humankind from patterns of suffering, hugging more often, cultivating stronger friendships with others. I don't lament when they are not fulfilled... as I did not fall into a state of restlessness when I was alone.

I wouldn't equate long term romantic relationships with hunger, since the former isn't an imperative biological desire.

I suppose I'm also not really "questing for purity" though.

I'm not sure what you mean by questing for purity. But what I meant was, that supposedly a codependent relationships exists out of unmet desires from the couple. Whereas the alternative, would in theory not be in a response to any desire at all. If you are not in a relationship in order to be happy, what are you in the relationship for?

I'm not trying to make this about you specifically. I'm inquiring as to the idea of relationship you are talking about.

Talisman

All things are constantly changing. The beginning of a relationship can be exciting and interesting because it's often full of passion and desire and initial attraction. After moving beyond the first few months, the relationship almost always changes atmosphere, and as the couple confronts new challenges and changes of mind, environment, personality, and preferences the realtionship changes as well.