"You must love in such a way that the person you love feels free."
---Thich Naht Hahn
What does the above mean to you?
---Thich Naht Hahn
What does the above mean to you?
Thich Nhat Hanh is a Zen master and author of many books about Zen, Buddhism, mindful living, etc. I've read some of his books, as has my wife, and in general they are among the better, more understandable books on this subject matter."You must love in such a way that the person you love feels free."
---Thich Nhat Hanh
It means that I am loved in such a way that I can be myself and feel emotional, physical and spiritual freedom. I am loved for me, who I am. There is total trust that this freedom is a positive concept not a negative one. I have no desire to explore anything with any other man, it is not about freedom to do the wrong thing by our partnership.
I can be me without fear of judgement, I am free to express myself and have discussions that are open and honest.
Holland captured it !.."You must love in such a way that the person you love feels free."
---Thich Naht Hahn
What does the above mean to you?
I know this is such an important aspect to you about your husband, it always stands out to me in your posts...it's dependent on your attraction to him even!.. that he doesn't need affirmed ..or need.Jld said: It is not a love based on coercion, or on his own selfishness. He does not need to be affirmed by me, nor to limit me. He simply wants to love me, to see me happy and joyful, to see myself the way he sees me. It is a love based on freedom, and not need.
I haven't read beyond your post so someone may have answered, but yes, Buddhism is NOT about attachments. It's not that there isn't an ethical and moral component to commitments you make, but basically the Buddha taught that the more attached you are to something, the loss of it creates suffering, and since all of life is suffering, avoid attachment. You can't escape suffering entirely, but you can lessen it. There's a great parable the Buddha taught. A woman came to him profoundly in despair because her grandchild had died. She was upset, understandably, and said to the Buddha that she wanted more grandchildren. He acknowledged her pain and suffering, and suggested to her that had she had had more grandchildren, she would also have had more attachment, and that attachment, when the thing is lost, leads to more suffering. In western terms, and our sense of the importance of family, his parable seems somewhat brutal, but the other issue is that if there is a voluntary aspect to a relationship and there is not some unhealthy attachment or some inordinate need, then acceptance of loss, and the gratitude for the time with the person, would be a much more likely and healthy response to the loss. The grandmother not only wanted what she lost, but she wanted more of it. There is also a symmetry about it: the more you have, the more attached to it you are, the more suffering you will have when you (inevitably) lose it. In Buddhism, the first of the four noble truths is that life is dukkha (suffering). One of the great sources of suffering is the ego. So if you love something or someone in a way that acknowledges their independence of you and their essential freedom FROM you, you are already in a healthy place and the loss is about the remembrance of the good things, and not some achingly egotistical experience.Holland captured it !..
I don't know a whole lot about Buddhism ...it seems to not like "attachments" though.. this is something not real clear to me.
Let's see...I have a need to feel loved, understood , wanted and accepted for who I am , where I am, with no pretense, no hiding, but unabashed honesty..... this is not to say...be as moody, selfish & miserable as possible...
It helps tremendously when the person we are with brings their BEST self forward (and us too!)...at least the majority of the time!.... which inspires within us ...comfort, intimacy, a building of trust.. we then feel warm towards the other, free to be vulnerable.. cared for....when we find THIS with another (and give it ourselves)..... there is a freedom in this.
With this comes an assurance we're together because we want to be.... not because we have to be... what we share, what we do ...we enjoy doing... it's not a forced thing we do grudgingly...or a feeling of being "controlled" or there will be backlash... living like this would slowly break our spirits.
Not sure I am even explaining this right.. I've always felt a freedom with my husband..he's not one to lay down the law in much of anything ...he's always been supportive in near anything I've ever wanted to do...if not.. there is always a safety factor involved.. which is very understandable..and in this I could see his care.. and listen.
I know this is such an important aspect to you about your husband, it always stands out to me in your posts...it's dependent on your attraction to him even!.. that he doesn't need affirmed ..or need.
Affirm = to offer (someone) emotional support or encouragement.
You probably have something else in mind when you pen the term... I think we all appreciate this from our spouses.. when we've had a bad day or sh** happens... some encouragement.. a hug... I don't know...
Part of my freedom in being myself ..I enjoy validating and uplifting my guy -when he does something /anything I appreciate... words of affirmation flow..
Knowing my husband the way I do.. I can't say he needs it , he's pretty "steadfast" ...whether I am half ignoring him, off doing my own thing.. or I'm all over him, his #1 fan....he's always treated me like he wanted the best for me... but I will say....he's appreciative when I share my want of him...it ups his "Vigor".. he has a wider smile, it brings good things..
This was a REALLY hard lesson for me to learn. I am very glad I did.It sure does seem that many folks - feel intense desires to control - the person they love.
It's why - when your partner steps back from you - the natural reflex is to step forward.
One of the basic ideas, as interpreted by the Western Mind, is that attachment is the bane of happiness, and if a person is attached, then they have some serious issues. It is their fault for having attachments, and the subsequent pain and unhappiness that arises from this perceived mis-alignment is karmic and well-deserved punishment. I claim hog-wash.
The focus on non-attachment is the very definition of attachment.
When I hear people talk about attachment, and how a person is deluded because they are attached to a person, or work, or prosperity, I am hearing the words of a person caught in limiting judgments. While it is true that certain types of attachment may inevitably lead to pain, the suffering of longing is available only because of attachment. It is a blessing in disguise. And though unfulfilled or broken attachments may lead to suffering, the bliss that can be discovered through that suffering leads to wisdom.
I am attached to my family, to my ideals of an ethical life, and to certain people in my life. I am attached to having food, shelter, and security. I am attached to taking care of my body and living a fulfilling life. Those attachments are gifts that are normal and healthy in life. They give a direction and purpose. Without positive attachments, a person becomes a lump, or worse, an desensitized person who robotically uses spiritual ideals to remain separated from experiencing the gifts of life.
And I will feel pain when separated from my loved ones; I will yearn and suffer for the want of company; I will feel a deep ache because my beloved pets die; I will have agony for falling short in my desires. I know the trepidation of illness, pain and death. And I am enriched for the experience, and have deepest gratitude for being able to feel life to its fullest.
Attachment is not the problem, attachment to desires are the issue.
It says of Romantic Love" If it is possible to live with a purpose, what should that purpose be? A purpose might be a guiding principle, a philosophy, or a value of sovereign importance that informs and directs our activities and thoughts.
To have one is to live seriously — though not necessarily wisely — following some track, believing in a hub to the wheeling universe or a sea toward which we flow or an end before which all the hubbub of civilization subsides. What is your purpose, friend, or what should it be?"
Yes I DO think like this.. to me.. in my world view.. this is the Greatest happiness... hence my username..Indeed, many take it on faith that romantic love is the highest thing to live for. Popular literature, movies, art, and music tirelessly celebrate it as the one truth accessible to all. Such love obliterates reason, as poets have long sweetly lamented, and this is part of its charm and power, because we want to be swept up and spirited out of our calculating selves. "Want" is the key word, for in the spiritual void of modern life the wanting of love becomes increasingly indistinguishable from love itself. So powerful, so insistent is it that we seldom notice that the gratification is rare and the craving relentless. Love is mostly in anticipation; it is an agony of anticipation; it is an ache for a completion not found in the dreary round of mundane routine. That we never seem to possess it in its imagined fullness does not deter us. It hurts so bad that it must be good.
It goes on to speak the UGLY side of Passion ...Love is sweet and it is our nature to give way. But why do we worship it so ardently and why do we break off our search for fulfillment here? Perhaps because we see no other gods. Yet if love is the highest thing to live for then this is a hopeless universe, because we should see in a calm hour that Cupid's arrows not only thrill us but make us bleed.
But says "True...few will shun the pursuit of romance out of fear of unhappy consequences"... and Buddhism teaches the ideal... which is nothing less than deliverance from all sorrow, called Nibbana. While worldly joys are mutable and fleeting, Nibbana is established, sorrowless, stainless, and secure. While worldly pains are piercing, unpredictable, and unavoidable, Nibbana is altogether free from pain."Divorces, suicides, dissipation, violence, depravity, fanaticism, and other miseries great and small follow from passion, and yet passion is still, in the public mind, considered commendable, a mark of vigor and liveliness. Though everybody will admit that passion gone awry is dangerous, few realize that passion is by its nature likely to go awry. Romantic love is a chancy passion that may result in the opposite of what is desired. It may have happy consequences, too — else it would not have so many votaries — but it raises the stakes in the gamble of life and makes us more vulnerable both to our own weaknesses and to unpredictable fortune.
What I learn from this is .. I am ignorant and foolish because I have stopped my quest at Romance , Love (which is called "uninformed passion")...Fulfillment /happiness is not attainable... but who is to speak for others happiness or how to achieve it.. (religions always try to do this, don't they)...Even under promising circumstances there is no guarantee that love will be returned in equal measure, or that it will last long, or that it will provide unalloyed joy. When we depend on it entirely for our happiness we must dwell in the shadow of pain, however bright our amorous interludes. What if we should lose our heart's support tomorrow? We're okay as long as we have each other, we assure ourselves dreamily. But we will not have each other long. Quarrels, time, distance, changes, or finally death dissolve all unions of friends, lovers, and relatives, plunging the unwary into despair and meaninglessness; and if we have no wisdom we too may go creeping about the lonely streets with our eyes staring hungrily into other eyes and seeing the same hunger there.
But in the way of the Buddha there is relief from distress and exile. In wisdom there is security. Because love is fragile and temporary it cannot protect us forever, but if we relax our grip it may bloom even better, allowing us to give and receive without encumbrance, frenzy, or fear, offering to each other our strength instead of our weakness.
In a sense the practice of Dhamma is like gradually filling the abyss of ignorance with knowledge until that terrible vacuum is appeased and neutralized and the heart no more cries for unknown succor. The perfected one, clinging to nothing here or hereafter, asks nothing and requires nothing, so he is wholly free. His loving-kindness is just the over-measure, the overflowing of his goodness quite purified of the need, the visceral wanting and the vacillation of ordinary attachment.
i have great respect for Zen, Sidhartha and buddhist thought, however i personally reject the premise that life is suffering therefore we
need to seek paths that minimize the suffering. to me the suffering is worth the risk.
in order to reach the greatest heights of love or acheivement, one must risk horrible failure or devastating loss.
i recall the words of Lord Tennyison "it is better to have loved and lost, than to never have loved at all".
I am an "in the moment" dweller, Mr H is more of a "future" dweller. Early on in our relationship this unsettled me and it took some time to work out why.I'm no Zen specialist by any stretch, so I can only say what I think as I try to keep learning. And that is I find love - especially reciprocated love - may be as close to nirvana as many of us will ever experience. It is the experience of that love, without the attachment to it, that matters to me. There is no suffering to contend with here. Eventually even a wonderful love will end, if only because it is removed by death. But that is a different experience entirely. Living in the moment, however, can remove or negate the idea of attachment and its problems IMO - it is only present experience that is seen and valued, not the anticipation of what may - or may not - exist in the future.