Jump to content
Dharmaling Forums

Recommended Posts

tashi Delek

 

Love. It is said that love is everywhere. But in Budhism we mainly

talk abou Compassion and Loving kindness. And not about Love. How is

with Love in Buddhism. Can we Love without desire and affliction. Can

we be in Love with Buddha? Or am i missing the point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Felix

Tashi Delek.

 

When in everyday life somebody says “love†I hear “attachmentâ€, as they are so interwoven most of the time. When a mystic writes about “loveâ€, the word gains a supra-personal dimension, generating a reach and allusive net of meanings that can make a reader susceptible to the harmonious relationships within the Universe. I would say the Buddhist answer is Bodhicitta. :bow:

 

But I do wonder what do you have in mind when you say “love� Do you miss the personal relationship in the common Buddhist explanations? Do you miss the intensity of feelings, known from a partnership? It is hard for me to enter a general discussion not knowing the context, although, I find the topic interesting. ;)

 

Respectfully,

Felix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A far as I know: in the Tibetan Buddhist Tradition there isn't a lot of emphasis on 'love'. There is a lot of emphasis on cherishing others, that is training in seeing each sentient being far more precious than ourselves. Geshe Langri Tangpa's 8 Verses mention that each being is 'more precious than the wish fulfilling jewel', and teaches that we should see even a traitor who 'harms us with great injustice as a sacred friend.'

There are two main methods on how to counteract self-cherishing and replace it with cherishing others ('Seven Point Mind Training' which includes Tonglen (taking and giving) and 'Six Causes for One Effect').

The term 'love' can be found in the explanation of the second method; after one has meditated on the fact that each sentient being has been one's kind mother many times, remembering their kindness, meditating on the wish to repay that kindness, the fourth cause is 'meditating on love through the force of attraction'. Equanimity meditation is preliminary to this four points. Equanimity means that one has neither great aversion neither great attachment towards others (I think Je Tsongkhapa says somewhere that equanimity is the most difficult thing to have).

Love (also 'heart warming love') is therefore free from attachment. It should come out of the wish to repay the infinite kindness that all sentient beings have shown you in countless previous lives since beginningless time as your caring mothers. At one time each being was your loving parent and you were completely dependent on him or her.

To counteract attachment towards the other sex, Arya Nagarjuna states that we should regard all women as either our mother, sister or daughter, depending on their age. I suppose women can contemplate 'father, brother, or son'.

Can we Love without desire and affliction.
Love in today's world means desire, the wish to possess, it's a 'neurotic' grasping state of mind. To have less desire it is said that we must think strongly and continously on impermanence and death. The Buddhist idea is to renounce attachment, to have less craving. Renunciation is the wish to become liberated. Kyabje Zopa Rinpoche says somewhere that when contemplating the shortcomings of samsara, we should feel as if trapped in a cave full of deadly poisonous snakes. You want to get out of there. :)

I guess in Buddhist terms it would be right to say that true love is without desire.

Can we be in Love with Buddha?
I think we can love the Buddha, yes, but not be 'in' love with Him. Love like a heart-felt admiration, and sincere respect for Him, mainly through respect for His sublime teachings and instruction (Dharma).

 

I found this wonderful contemplation on love (metta).

Take care. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning.

 

Yesterday I was watching on TV one real movie about described event...one child of around four years came running from the bathrom to his father, and screaming "There is a spider in the bathroom!" The father asked a child "What are we going to do with a spider in the bathroom?" and the child answered "We will kill him!" As soon as the child said these words, he himself started to cry saying "I cannot kill the spider. I cannot kill him." Father said "Of course we will not kill him, but we will take him outside on the grass." The child was happy, said "Goodbye, spider, goodbye!" And then he added "Spider, see you tomorrow...again!"

 

Was in that case the aversion changed into love on the basis of compassion? Is love the power which keeps the things together, and the aversion the one which makes things to fall apart, make friends to quarrel for example? Is the compassion than nothing else but the power to change things?

 

Best regards,

Simona

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the spider story - thank you Simona.

I agree with Khenyrab, the Metta text is beautiful - thank you for that.

 

I would just like to point out this beautiful little excerpt from that text:

Rather, love, that lies like a soft but firm hand on the ailing beings, ever unchanged in its sympathy, without wavering, unconcerned with any response it meets. Love that is comforting coolness to those who burn with the fire of suffering and passion; that is life-giving warmth to those abandoned in the cold desert of loneliness, to those who are shivering in the frost of a loveless world; to those whose hearts have become as if empty and dry by the repeated calls for help, by deepest despair.

 

This is the first time I see Metta translated as Love; other texts I came across translated it as loving-kindness. I feel pacified at last. The more my ego grasps for this à¢-Ëœkindness', pleasurable, comfortable part of love, to get and to give, the less there is place for anything nor anyone else but Samsara and ME, isn't there?

 

I've heard several times lately the famous sentence à¢-Ëœyou must love yourself first, to be able to love anyone else' à¯Ã‚Š

 

Firm, unchanged, unconcerned, coolness :scaredead: ...you're talking about love? :laugh:

 

I think for this à¢-Ëœmetta' love to be put into practice, I need to trade emotions for wisdom.

 

And I think I finally can agree even with that famous sentence, which irritated me so much in the past - it's good to start with myself - hahaha.

 

Thank you all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek

 

Thank you for your answers. I was not thinking about love in common sense. As i see it it is full of afflictive moments. And i do think that in that case it results in idolatry. I am looking for a more profound meaning. What is this pure love - more than just likeing. Is it a commitement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Felix

Tashi Delek.

 

Interesting angle about love, dear GnamDrug. :bow:

 

I believe love is a process, not a state. Or better, a certain type of motivation in motion.

 

There are many situations in life that can evoke in us a taste of something beyond anything we knew before. It can be falling in love; or becoming a parent; surviving a life-threatening situation; being saved from any kind of abyss; meeting a wise person... There are situations that have a power to make an incision in our usual ideals about relationships. They can shake our habit of trading with emotions and expectations. There is obviously something much stronger than personal interests, no doubt about it.

 

It can start by being inspired by one person, but it inevitably grows, I believe, into recognizing the same principles in all beings. (Unless one's enthrallment of a person's immense potentials / inner beauty is demolished by a wish to posses. :,( )

 

In a more down to earth language: I believe that Buddhist synonym for love is Bodhicitta. First we have to hear an echo of it or taste it, even if it comes from a book or a picture, in order to believe it is possible. Then we need a model and guidance, so that it can become our path. :levitation: Then we can become the Path itself.

 

Is this answer at least approximately in your direction of thinking?

 

Respectfully,

Felix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So well said, Felix, thank you - very inspireing :bow:

Is it a commitement?
In this light I would say from my personal perspective, for this type of 'love' I made it a commitment upon taking Bodhisattva vows - a commitment to develop it, to work on it...when one enters mahayana path I would guess there is no commitment no more as one becomes the path, as Felix says...

 

p.s. this commitment word is another one of those (like love) that keeps echoing wrong in my samsara...commitment - something I am obliged to do, I 'must' - like it or not...but it is not the way it is :angel: ...not all the time... :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Petra S

Hi!

 

Is love the power which keeps the things together, and the aversion the one which makes things to fall apart, make friends to quarrel for example?
You've almost convinced me, but we can love, for example, someone's easy-going character at one moment, :applause: and a few months later it can drive us mad. :#

 

I think relationships fall apart because we expect that the others will make us happy. But they can not, even if they wish to, and we can not do it for them. On the other hand, I think that such boring unappealing tiresome things as responsibility, grinding our ego, permanent interest about the others and similar can keep things together. ;)

 

Although... These tiresome things are changing a person, while the other one might remain “a friend of a good weatherâ€, avoiding a discomfort of a deeper change. :angel:

If one person changes more radically than another, the differences can grow so big that it is the same if one is single.

 

It is in the nature of samsara that things change.

 

Is the compassion than nothing else but the power to change things?
I have no idea, but I like the question. :D I don't know which term I would choose to describe the power to change... Freedom? Compassion? Responsibility? Curiosity? Giving-up-one's-wishes? Discipline? A wish-for-results? Peace? ...

 

Bye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know which term I would choose to describe the power to change... Freedom? Compassion? Responsibility? Curiosity? Giving-up-one's-wishes? Discipline? A wish-for-results? Peace? ...
....experiencing situation as unbearable?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Petra S
....experiencing situation as unbearable?...
Yes! To experience one's negativities as unbearable. I meant a change when one transforms his selfishness/averision/fear into love for another, like in the spider story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes! To experience one's negativities as unbearable. I meant a change when one transforms his selfishness/averision/fear into love for another
Yes, me too ;)

...and a change to make the situation bearable, once we've helped them - the loved ones (eventually and hopefully all) - out of suffering, after we have gained the wisdom to be efficient...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think relationships fall apart because we expect that the others will make us happy. But they can not, even if they wish to, and we can not do it for them.
Yes, because what brings us happiness is not the person, but it is a type of relationship we have with the person. If the happiness came from the person and not from the relationship then the person would bring us the happiness always, but this is not the case. Far from that, sometimes! Understanding this, we can untie the attachment to the person or the aversion without losing our affection, concern, love.

Best regards,

Simona

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, because what brings us happiness is not the person, but it is a type of relationship we have with the person. If the happiness came from the person and not from the relationship then the person would bring us the happiness always, but this is not the case. Far from that, sometimes! Understanding this, we can untie the attachment to the person or the aversion without losing our affection, concern, love.

Thank you very much Simona for sharing this thought with us. It is a great view and tool for dissolving attachment. We generally are attached to the person and do not see that the relationship is not of right nature, or the opposite. Just observing the relation also brings a lot of clarity. Yet I think that if there is to much work needed to be done for relationship to be supportive, better not loose the energy. Relationship seems to me still a samsaric creation, not too much effort to be invested in it.

 

As at the end one can become a Master of relationship in Samasara and not an enlightened being - life is short :// .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Dani,

:)

I might not have a clue, but how i understand it now, love is a state of mind, with the embracing quality. I prefer to speak about developing love around this or that person, rather then being in love with this or that person, for this letter implies to going out of your own world of awarness to grasping the image of in front of you, or the experience that it gives you.

And if it is like that, once is developed, of course is developed for whatever appears in front of you. When these eyes-in-favour develope, they cannot change the perception regarding the surrounding. Why would they; it's nicer this way, I guess.

best regards,

pamo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As at the end one can become a Master of relationship in Samasara and not an enlightened being - life is short :// .
Do you mean the enlightenend being is in no relation what so ever with what or/and who so ever?

Best regards,

Simona

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And if it is like that, once is developed, of course is developed for whatever appears in front of you. When these eyes-in-favour develope, they cannot change the perception regarding the surrounding. Why would they; it's nicer this way, I guess.
I am not completely sure I understand what you mean?

I would agree that love is a state of mind, but then I lost you a bit...I understood what you were saying a bit as if I found someone to really love my mind would become it, the love around that someone, and then I would automatically have the 'love-eyes on' and love all?

Would you be so kind to explain again what you meant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you mean the enlightened being is in no relation what so ever with what or/and who so ever?
I think it is in relation with equanimity. One being can be supportive to our development of equanimity, the prerequisite for developing love. Yet I think the closeness with that person can be very present, just it does not end with it.

 

I thought it is impossible to meet a person, who would encourage equanimity as it can be scary for that person, yet now I see it is possible. The the relationship with attainment of enlightenment as a goal can cope with this motivation. And there are surely also other possible variations, but I did not experience them 8/ .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Dani,

Would you be so kind to explain again what you meant?

yes, of course.

In a way yes, as an answer to your question about the eyes on, but as it usually takes time to learn about love, to wake it up within you, to believe it, it cannot work as a switch. Love I see as a healing quality within one, everything else as the opposite. A relationship I see as a good potential to develop awareness about love; what sustains it, what it's consisted of, because it usually begins with being in love, with projecting the best in you onto your partner, which makes you fly around high on a very passionate fuel of hope you have finally found what you had been looking for: to step into the ultimate happiness, which is the quality of feeling as whole, one, gathered from all around in one piece, finally. But this is an illusion. So the ground there's none. Eventually that's made clear. This can then be the ground; to start looking within oneself what is going on around the chosen person. So the ground is within oneself. And therefore it can of course be applied to not just one, but many, all in fact, if one chooses so. Since a mind is a mind, the dynamics in our relationship are not that different among themselves. Maybe in certain periods of time we go through certain experiences around one person, which doesn't mean that in few years we will meet also some experiences that we had thought we would never before. It's very unpredictable. On the other hand, it can become predictable, if one starts to trust him/herself. Love is not highly charged energy. It burns like blazing fire within everyone, manifesting soothing flames in different ways. Our projections act upon it as bricks putting it off, but that's an illusion too. Although that happens all the time in our lives. That is why it can not work as a switch. We need to develop trust in it. We need to develop a habit to act out of it. If it's about supporting life, growth and development, then there is love. If it is about being nourishing, then there is love. If it's about truth, there is love. And to refer to GnamDrug's question about if it is possible to fall in love with a Buddha, I would say not just possible; but to develop love around a buddha is most natural and easiest thing to happen, for what else then the very best of yourself do you want to look for from within yourself to give out to one who he/she him/herself is manifested love itself!

Best regards,

pamo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love this quote, so I put it here. With best wishes, K.

 

Intending to be helpful and without personal investment,

You tell your friends what is really wrong with them.

You may have been honest but your words gnaw at their heart.

Speak pleasantly - that's my sincere advice.

 

- from Thirty Pieces of Sincere Advice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...