# How we must love



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

"You must love in such a way that the person you love feels free."

---Thich Naht Hahn



What does the above mean to you?


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

Hard to articulate what it means to me but here goes:

Feeling free in a committed relationship is one of my highest needs, it has taken some time for my partner to get his head around what it actually means but I also want the same for him, to feel free.

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.

I cannot stand the feeling of being trapped in a relationship and by that I mean trapped by the others insecurities or lack of trust, I am a trustworthy person. 

Given the freedom to be myself I flourish in a healthy relationship. I do everything I can to bring happiness to my partner. I want my partner to feel free to be himself, no pretences, just be himself and free.

Feeling free has the priceless bonus of then crossing over to the bedroom, when I feel free I enjoy sex in a limitless way and I want more of it. 

As I said hard to articulate, hope some of this makes sense JLD


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Holland said:


> Hard to articulate what it means to me but here goes:
> 
> Feeling free in a committed relationship is one of my highest needs, it has taken some time for my partner to get his head around what it actually means but I also want the same for him, to feel free.
> 
> ...


What a beautiful post, Holland. Thank you so much for sharing that. 

When I read that quote, the first thing I thought of was, "That is how Dug loves me!" 

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.

Again, thanks so much for sharing your thoughts!


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

intheory said:


> Sounds like something made up in order to sell books, or sell tickets to motivational speaking engagements.
> 
> Nebulous enough to mean whatever you want it to. And that's probably not an accident.


Lol, intheory. I see you are not convinced. 

I guess it could be just a ploy. I would not have considered that. 

Are you familiar with this man? I have only heard the name, myself. I don't really know much about him.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, too.


----------



## aine (Feb 15, 2014)

Holland said:


> Hard to articulate what it means to me but here goes:
> 
> Feeling free in a committed relationship is one of my highest needs, it has taken some time for my partner to get his head around what it actually means but I also want the same for him, to feel free.
> 
> ...


i love what you wrote but this type of thinking and freedom requires high levels of trust. Not all partners are paired in such a way, there is usually one who does a lot of the giving the other the taking. The giver loses out.

Yes I would want my partner to be free to be himself, but if being himself is a lower self, a hugely flawed self then hmmmm? So this statement to me is too nuanced though it sounds great.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

> "You must love in such a way that the person you love feels free."
> 
> ---Thich Nhat Hanh


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.

I think @Holland has beautifully captured what the quote means. It also captures the relationship my wife and I have. Our philosophy of life is largely Buddhist-Taoist.



> 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.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

jld said:


> "You must love in such a way that the person you love feels free."
> 
> ---Thich Naht Hahn
> 
> ...


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.



> *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 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..


----------



## NoChoice (Feb 12, 2012)

I simply call it "the knowing". You simply know. If we can find this reciprocated, it is indeed a special relationship.


----------



## MarriedDude (Jun 21, 2014)

intheory said:


> Sounds like something made up in order to sell books, or sell tickets to motivational speaking engagements.
> 
> Nebulous enough to mean whatever you want it to. And that's probably not an accident.




"For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast,
And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed:
And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill,
And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!"

Isn't everything made up though?


----------



## TXanimal (Jul 28, 2015)

From a Buddhist perspective, I think it means exercising non-attachment (not to be confused with detachment). When we cling to people, ideas, and things, we create illusions and expectations about them. When your spouse, in this case, fails to live up to those expectations, human nature wants to mold that person to fit them. When that happens, neither of you is happy...you are resentful that your spouse can't live up to your expectations, and your spouse is resentful that you don't love him/her as is. 

If you love someone as Thay suggests, neither of you is clinging to illusions of what happiness or love or perfection are. You are free to be yourselves, and I'm that environment of mutual respect, love can flourish.

I learned this the hard way.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

NoChoice said:


> I simply call it "the knowing". You simply know. If we can find this reciprocated, it is indeed a special relationship.



Knowing isn't enough. I know what every neuron of my wife's brain is thinking. That hasn't done much good to either of us. On second thought she hasn't made any effort whatsoever to try to know what I am all about. 

If the knowing is one sided - like in my case - one opens themselves for tremendous trouble. So the only remedy is to learn the other person - duh, reciprocate...

Would I take marriage advice from Buddhists? No offense but, well, no. As much as I'd take meat cooking advice from a vegetarian.

There's some degree of freedom in a relationship but not quite as much as one may think - for practical purposes.


----------



## Marc878 (Aug 26, 2015)

Meh, Knowing she likes me groping her whenever i want is good enough.

I keep things simple 😎


----------



## TeddieG (Sep 9, 2015)

SimplyAmorous said:


> Holland captured it !..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


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. 

jld, I'm curious why you asked the question? The great irony about Gautama Siddhartha, the Buddha, is that he was a walk-away husband. He left his wife and child to go off on his spiritual quest. Part of this, though, was his FOO issues. His father, a king (Gautama was a prince), had gone to great measures to protect Gautama from suffering and deprivation and to close him off from the horrible things of the world. When Gautama escaped his father's palace, he saw suffering all around him and was absolutely overwhelmed by it. The Indian caste system meant that a small minority enjoyed abundance and the majority of the population suffered want and need. When Gautama went wandering to look at the world as it was, given the protection and coddling his father had provided, he went in search of an explanation and a remedy, and left his loved ones behind.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

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. 


QUOTE=intheory;13824370]Sounds like something made up in order to sell books, or sell tickets to motivational speaking engagements.

Nebulous enough to mean whatever you want it to. And that's probably not an accident.[/QUOTE]


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Teddie, I started this thread because I came across the quote the other day and I thought it described how my husband loves me. I was curious as to how other people might interpret TNH's words. 

I did not realize that the Buddha was a wah. Very interesting. Thank you for sharing that.


----------



## SecondTime'Round (Jan 15, 2015)

I love that quote and it's what I hope my next love will be like. My ex-husband is the exact opposite and it's why I have so much healing to do.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

TeddieG said:


> 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.


 I would greatly struggle to be a Buddhist then...I get very attached to those I am close with... I cringe to even think of the loss - I can tear up just thinking about it.. 

I feel that's a part of who I am .. and yes.. there is a grueling grieving process to go through.. which I guess I find normal... one doesn't want to get stuck in any of those stages.. but still.. the idealism of love.. it's beauty in feeling so connected to another.. I would feel like I chopped off my arm to fight against this.. in life, in love. 



> 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


 Everything this woman felt I can relate to. ..according to Buddha.. I ran my life entirely wrong then.. for instance.. I had a sucky childhood, no siblings.. Mother ran off with a drunk.. all I wanted in life was a family.. a larger family OF MY OWN.. which I found me a man who was happy to oblige... and we had half dozen kids.. this HAS brought me great happiness.. Family.. 

But true.. the near thought of them all being killed in a car wreck.. I can't go there.. life would be over for me. The suffering of this is more than I think anyone should bare.. but yet should we not go after what we want in life.. for fear of this loss?

My way of balancing loss -has always been to live as safely as one possibly can... to use wisdom... (for instance we discovered days ago.. that our kids were building a fire pit on top of a high wall on our property.... it was dangerous walking up there, someone could slide down a cliff !....so we went out & bought 100's of feet of fencing & put it up the next day -that was urgent!)

Anything we can do on our end to minimize bodily harm, also financial risk.. emotional pain, you name it... but it's never been to not "attach" .. that just comes with enjoying our lives - and the people in it.. I wouldn't know how to even try to stop this.. other than trying to become a monk... a loner... 

Again I would suck as a Buddhist! 



> 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.


 I find it healthy to just work through grieving -understand it will take time.. many tears along the way.... ultimately to find "acceptance" with what has been lost.. and inspiration to move on...people in our lives help us through this.. 

Is there something wrong with how I see it ..is What Buddha teaches in opposition?



> 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.


 It's a lot to grasp.. If I seen a husband or wife not grieving in pain over a loss of a husband or child.. I would find them cold & heartless.. I find to love, you will experience Loss.. and there is nothing wrong with this... it's part of our human experience. 



> jld, I'm curious why you asked the question? The great irony about Gautama Siddhartha, the Buddha, is that he was a walk-away husband. He left his wife and child to go off on his spiritual quest. Part of this, though, was his FOO issues. His father, a king (Gautama was a prince), had gone to great measures to protect Gautama from suffering and deprivation and to close him off from the horrible things of the world. When Gautama escaped his father's palace, he saw suffering all around him and was absolutely overwhelmed by it. The Indian caste system meant that a small minority enjoyed abundance and the majority of the population suffered want and need. When Gautama went wandering to look at the world as it was, given the protection and coddling his father had provided, he went in search of an explanation and a remedy, and left his loved ones behind.


 You know a lot about this.. I haven't read anything.. the most I heard about Buddha was from our oldest son comparing religions one day-- yrs ago now... he's a christian but felt they had similar ways of looking at EGO .. though I forget what he said now ...it's lost on me.. 

I guess Buddha was true to what he taught then...He was a man on a mission of enlightenment.. do we all need THIS MUCH?? .... as to leave our family behind.. I don't think so.. he cut out the attachment alright... Interesting though.


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

Well, that quote works for two committed, and emotionally healthy people. But there are people who won't feel free if they are not allowed for a tantrum thrown at their loved ones once in a while, because it bottles them up. Or they need to go out for the whole night every weekend. Or to flirt around. If they do not do those things they don't feel free. Then what? I do not want my partner to feel free to yell at me, because that releases his tension. Your freedom ends where my freedom starts. Being wiht someone does include some limits, and if you are emotionally healthy this comes organically, so you feel free. But if you are with someone who is not, than this is just a slogan. And my view of humandkind is not very positive...

all these slogans sound so nice in theory, just put it on the nice picture and share on facebook. The moment you start disecting them, a lot of questions arise.


----------



## brooklynAnn (Jun 29, 2015)

The ideal of love with no attachment, is just not doable. Attachment is what hold us together. It's the bonds that we form and cultivate that leads to love. 

"You must love in such a way that the person you love feels free."
---Thich Nhat Hanh

I love my husband, in loving him I choose to love him as he is. I don't try to change him. He can be who he is and not who I want him to be. He knows he can do his thing, and when he returns, I am there. He is free to be himself.

But my attachment to him because of my love, are threads that hold us together. He is free to fly away from me if he chooses. My threads are just going to drag me along, as he flies away. Which leads to my suffering and pain. 

You cant really love without suffering and pain, when that love is no more. So, while we love, we are exposing ourselves to the possibility of suffering. 

I am never going to reach enlightenment. I wouldn't even try. I try not to be attached to things, or create too much desire for things. My downfall is love, I love a few people and I love them so much. Wont trade them, even for heaven.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

TXanimal said:


> From a Buddhist perspective, I think it means exercising non-attachment (not to be confused with detachment). When we cling to people, ideas, and things, we create illusions and expectations about them. When your spouse, in this case, fails to live up to those expectations, human nature wants to mold that person to fit them. When that happens, neither of you is happy...you are resentful that your spouse can't live up to your expectations, and your spouse is resentful that you don't love him/her as is.
> 
> If you love someone as Thay suggests, neither of you is clinging to illusions of what happiness or love or perfection are. You are free to be yourselves, and I'm that environment of mutual respect, love can flourish.
> 
> I learned this the hard way.


Buddla would have relished in Casual sex I guess.. no attachment .. I think it's better to find a mate who is compatible so you won't have to be banging your head against the wall in unrealistic expectations.. 

Buddha's philosophy, however, seems so long as you don't care or have no expectations of another... it might not matter who you are with.. I just don't find this reasonable.. given how we are made .. with feelings, strong desires etc.. we can't just cut these out of our selves.. and frankly.. why would we want to.. we'd loose our "flavor", what makes us unique and interesting.


----------



## TeddieG (Sep 9, 2015)

Every religion has gaps in it, leaves something out, in terms of the human condition and the reality of the way people live and deal with life, and it is not clear to me what the Buddha says about grief. Origin stories are designed to explain the features of the human condition, like death, the loss or absence of immortality, etc. But just like the Gospels, the stories that are told about the founder of a religious movement (the Buddha was a Hindu, and his teachings, like those of Jesus, were meant to give comfort and some autonomy to the exploited classes) are sometimes reflecting the ideal of what humans aspire to. These stories and the parables the religious figures taught were to provide comfort and direction and ease conflict, and evolved into a new religion, with principles that not everyone can reach. The process of grief for Buddhists in the West is much like that of anyone else, influenced by the culture. And the stories were embellished as they were told. The Gospels were oral until at least a generation after Jesus died; everyone believed he was coming back but as eyewitnesses started dying off, the stories began to be written down, starting in about 70 CE, with John's appearing in about 90. The Buddha never wanted his teachings written down. For one, the people who could read and write would have the power to interpret them and tell others what they said or meant, rather than people having access to them directly. They were eventually written down but not before a long period of oral transmission, and there are three different canons of Buddhist scripture, the primary one being the Pali Canon. 

Your son is on to something about the ego, but the ego is VERY different in Buddhism and Christianity. In Christianity, there is the concept of the soul and its existence beyond that of the body, into eternity. In Judaism, that concept was very nebulous and unclear and when people died, they went to sleep; if they were the elite, they went to Sheol or were said to be "asleep in the bosom of their fathers," or "asleep in the bosom of Abraham." The principle of physical resurrection for the purpose of judgment day came from Daniel, after the exile in Babylon of the ten northern tribes (the Kingdom of Israel, while the southern Kingdom of Judah survived it's defeat and returned to Jerusalem), so it is a late development in Judaism from another culture. So there are two strains of thought in biblical Judaism about the soul, which is why you see the Pharisees and the Saduccees divided over what the afterlife looks like.

By the time of the events of the Gospels, there had been several hundred years of conquest of Israel by various groups; the Babylonians were defeated by the Persians (all that stuff in the movie 300 affected Palestine), who were defeated by Alexander the Great, and when he died, his kingdom was divided between his three generals, and by then, the entire known world was speaking Greek, and had absorbed Greek ideas about the soul. Before Alexander, Socrates taught that the soul is immortal, outlives the body, and goes to a place of perfection. Alexander was trained in Greek philosophy and his conquest spread it far and wide. The Romans defeated the generals of Alexander, and that's the situation when the Gospels unfold, but you can clearly see Jesus teaching that the spirit or soul lives after the body. His descriptions of where those souls go is narrow and small, and heaven becomes an issue, a more full-blown place, in the 5th century, thanks to St. Augustine and his idea of the Heavenly City. You can see some description of heaven in the Book of Revelation, but John's writings were considered a little unorthodox, too violent, to inclined to make the apocalypse a bloody nasty event, and too anti-Jewish, and almost didn't make it into the biblical canon. The notion of the soul is a Western one, Greek and Roman, not Jewish, but it made its way into Christianity and European/American culture. But when the West began to develop the idea of the individual, the concept of the ego arose with it. Some Greek philosophers taught not only that people have a soul, but that they have the capacity for reason, for rationality, and that this principle of reason is what conveys the divine image, the imago dei, the way we are made in God's image; the thread that connects the human being to an understanding of God occurs at the level of rationality. This is not a Jewish idea. There are two creation stories in Genesis, and in one of them, God shapes humans from clay. In the other he breathed his spirit into their nostrils. So humans are earth bound AND have some remnant of the image of God, but the soul is not as fully-developed a concept as it in Greek and Roman thought. But when Eve ate the apple, she let her reason dictate what seemed to be a logical thing to do and the result was fallenness, corruption in the human soul, ergo, the fallenness and selfishness of the ego as it the fall was developed later in Christianity. 

The Buddha, on the other hand, taught that really one of THE greatest threats to happiness and well-being is the idea of the soul, and his teachings suggest that it gives rise to the problems that Freud would later term the ego. The Buddha said that human beings are made up the same aggregation of matter and chemical and whatever makes up the world and the physical space we occupy, but that we are also part of the great animating cosmic presence that is the universe. There's a dualism there, too, like the Greek version (some of the Greeks felt the body limited the soul, which is why they were so into discipline of their bodies), but it is not a division, body and soul, matter and spirit, are not separate. For the Buddha, it would be more of a kind of rational principle. Basically there's no creation; Buddhism doesn't concern itself with creation or origin stories, since there's no bearing on how the world started and how you achieve nirvana. Like Chinese Daoism, Buddhism teaches that the universe just always has been and is in a constant state of creating and recreating. When the Buddha achieved enlightenment, nirvana, he reached the point in his meditation where he was able to see and experience himself at one with the universe, reabsorbed into it but without having to die to do so. But this is the end goal, for people to realize that they when they die, they are at one with the universe, their atoms and molecules returned and recycled (like the Greek materialist philosophers who taught there IS no soul and that humans are matter, and that there is a certain amount of matter in the universe and it doesn't disappear or disintegrate, it just keeps reappearing in different form). The reason nirvana is the end goal is because it stops the harsh cycle of karma and reincarnation; it means your grandmother doesn't come back as another life form and continues to suffer for her present or past action. Reincarnation just keeps repeating the suffering. Salvation, liberation, in Buddhism, is realizing that there is no soul and that you return to the universe when you die, in a form of oneness. It's different from the Jewish formula of "ashes to ashes, dust to dust," but similar. At my mother's funeral recently, the preacher read the "ashes to ashes, dust to dust" line and then added the passage about our sure and certain anticipation of the resurrection. In Christianity, the soul is eternal and survives the body. In Buddhism, instead of your soul going one place forever and your body to the ground, it all goes back to the universe, reabsorbed as matter and the rational principle in the universe. If you have a sense of being a part of the animating cosmic presence in the universe, you realize that ALL people do, and it is supposed to create compassion and empathy, and thus eliminate class lines and create social justice. But "losing our flavor" does seem to be a consequence of what the Buddha tended to advance; it is an extreme form of "oneness" with other humans and the human condition, and definitely at odds with the concept of the individual. And for what it is worth, family, as a concept, and its importance, was never even part of Christianity until the Reformation in the 16th century. The emphasis on people going into monasteries or holy orders. The sacrament of marriage and family became important when monks and nuns began leaving the convents and monasteries because they wanted children and families, in the 16th century. Religions often respond to what is followers want, in terms of values. 

So there is no soul in Buddhism, and the Buddha found the teaching that there is troublesome. That distinction is one of the seminal distinctions between eastern religions and western-influenced ones.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Much of the issue here is a misunderstanding of attachment. I think this excerpt from a Buddhist writer may help clarify the issue:



> 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## TeddieG (Sep 9, 2015)

Yes, at the heart of the parable of the grandmother, the Buddha's point is that it is the desire for the thing you were attached to that causes the pain. It is the desire for something you cannot have or is no longer in your life. But a lot of the emphasis on desire in modern Buddhism is a consequence of interpreting Buddhism in Western contexts; the idea of meditation as it is practiced today, mindfulness, awareness, healthy non-attachment, arose in Burma after the English conquered and brought Western ideas to the east in the 19th century. It was a way of trying to maintain a basic Buddhist practice but it got interpreted and reinterpreted for Western colonizers who brought it to the West. Quotes like this useful one are designed to try to get back to the principles of the original teaching. And there is the problem of Westerners interpreting the Buddha very radically. 

My h read the Herman Hesse book Siddhartha and had his kids read it, in part because I think the loss of attachment, even healthy attachment, to family and friends and loved ones, was a consequence of his depression, and it gave him a context to fit it in, to redeem it, so to speak. But his loss of attachment, the absence of feeling that is a consequence of depression, was something he sought answers to at one point, and he found some resonance in the teachings of the Buddha and non-attachment, as though that is a basic human principle (he came to believe that no relationship ever really and truly lasts), even though he interpreted non-attachment really rather radically and tragically, and could have been treated for depression instead.

ETA: in Buddhism, as in other traditions, there is no promise of an afterlife. There is no promise that the person who is dead is in a better place; they may be on the karma wheel, not having achieved samsara (getting OFF the karma/reincarnation wheel), no promise of having achieved enlightenment. In the West, Judaism has developed ideas about the afterlife that are comforting, based on reward and punishment, righting the injustices and sufferings experienced on the earth, and the same is true in spades for Christianity. So the person in Buddhism is dealing with the loss and the desire through meditation and mindfulness, a regular ongoing practice, as opposed to a sure and certain belief in a loved one's presence in the afterlife and the resurrection of the world to come. Most religions have a salvation narrative, a promise of a happy ending perhaps, or an ending that rights wrongs and metes out punishments and rewards, but in many of them, these are a nebulous hope or belief (which I would argue is true of Judaism and Christianity too, and Islam for that matter, since there is no proof), but in some religions beliefs and teachings about the afterlife are more concrete and less abstract.


----------



## 4x4 (Apr 15, 2014)

Holland said:


> Hard to articulate what it means to me but here goes:
> 
> Feeling free in a committed relationship is one of my highest needs, it has taken some time for my partner to get his head around what it actually means but I also want the same for him, to feel free.
> 
> ...


Where is the "Like x 100" button? Best post I've read in awhile Holland. Your's too SA.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

"You must love in such a way that the person you love feels free."

---Thich Naht Hahn

I think this is about seeing love as a gift.

A true gift is given freely, without ego.

If your love is egotistical, you are placing a burden on the object of your love. So they are not free.

If you are a parent, and you love your child because he succeeds in school or sports, for example, he will know this and it will create anxiety in him. He will not feel free because of your love; he will feel burdened by it. 

It is not a gift-- it is a projection of your ego. Your child knows he is not free to be who he is if he wants your love. Your love is conditioned on him being the person you want.

*********

On attachment:

I'm not a real Buddha-Doctor but I play one on TV.

I think the word "attachment" throws people off. It's an imprecise translation of the concept in my opinion.

I think the better way to think of it is not to "dwell" in things.

You love your children. That is good. But if you allow yourself to dwell too much in this love it can become bad. You can become smothering. You can also become an incomplete person. 

What happens when your children inevitably grow up and leave you? Who will you be then? If you dwell too much in this love, you lose yourself.

Not dwelling in things is an aspect of the impermanence of things. Nothing is permanent. This is neither good nor bad. When you dwell in things you deny the impermanence of things. You attempt to hold things still. It is like a mother who wishes her children will never grow up. It denies the reality of life and this resistance is the source of suffering.

I believe buddhism teaches you to be kind and to give but to realize the impermanance of everything and to not cling to things or dwell too intensely in anything.

Give your love freely like dropping a twig in a stream.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> 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.


This was a REALLY hard lesson for me to learn. I am very glad I did.


----------



## SecondTime'Round (Jan 15, 2015)

I should be working, but I loved this quote so much I wanted to add it to a pic I've always loved of my daughter so I went hunting for it in my old FB photos and made this. This is a pic of her from many years ago releasing a balloon to Pop-Pop in heaven on his birthday. 

I'm loving reading all of the interpretations of this quote.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

I like the quotes you used @Married but Happy ...that sounds reasonable...

Just seems Buddism would bulk at anything Romantic.. thought I would look that up.. found this long article...it speaks of this "Freedom".. some attainment to reach "Nibbana " or "Dhamma"...

Nothing Higher to Live For: A Buddhist View of Romantic Love...the article starts with THIS question ...


> " 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?"


It says of Romantic Love







...



> 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.


 Yes I DO think like this.. to me.. in my world view.. this is the Greatest happiness... hence my username.. 

The article speaks ...


> 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.


It goes on to speak the UGLY side of Passion ...



> 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.


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."

That Freedom is spoken here...



> 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.


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)... 

Somewhere in there it mentioned Saints...not caring anything about that sort of boring existence -imaging meditating all day.. give me desire please!)... to reach this sort of enlightenment.. it's just not on the radar.. maybe once I experience profound loss.. I will feel differently... 

Isn't that how it often works.. something shakes us, moves us... then we find ourselves on a NEW path....Just speaking for myself here... I appreciate "attachment".. I can't see it all in the derogatory form as this speaks.. even if it's just for a season... I have no desire to beat myself up over this .... even if /when it will all cease and I must experience these grueling stages of profound loss/ suffering ... 










I am religion-less....I find what people believe, WHY they believe fascinating however.. .. if I would call myself anything... it would be a "Deist".. I have no claim to any "answers" beyond this life.. I'd lean more towards the Scientist over the Preacher one might say.. 

I must admit I LIKE the idea of an afterlife , to see my Grandmother again.. to be reunited somewhere -with all those we attached with here on earth...It's not something I hold on to though... which is another reason grief would be even more overwhelming -not having that assurance, or believing in it.. 

Realistically speaking (realist here ).. I feel we TELL ourselves these things to relieve our pain.. but even in saying that.. I'd be very pleased to be wrong !


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

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".


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

I think the point is to accept that nothing is permanent. Acceptance of that fact reduces the suffering that occurs when one is attached to something that is lost.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

jorgegene said:


> 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.
> ...










...Yes.. it's just a different perspective.. I know a family who lost a son to a drunk driver... they treat me like one of their own children.. I asked the father one day as he was speaking about his son.. it would have been his birthday (he died in his 20's).. if he KNEW what was down the road .. would he still choose to have his son those 20 yrs...

You know what.. he couldn't answer that question... The Loss was so significant.. he was the one who found him.. and tried to resuscitate and he died in his arms..

You just take life as it comes...and try to enjoy it while the good times last.. what else can we do.. 

I think of this song... Garth Brooks - The Dance (Official Video) ... take a listen... Garth speaks to the meaning of this song.. not about Romance.. but living.. and loss.. 

Beautiful.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

I think the romantic love thing is tricky.

If you're looking for romantic love to complete you, you are "dwelling in form" and likely will pay the price.

I think you must learn to be OK with being alone first.


----------



## TeddieG (Sep 9, 2015)

Oh, I agree we tell ourselves things to relieve pain! 

"I must admit I LIKE the idea of an afterlife , to see my Grandmother again.. to be reunited somewhere -with all those we attached with here on earth...It's not something I hold on to though... which is another reason grief would be even more overwhelming -not having that assurance, or believing in it.."

That's it. One of the reasons I study religion is because I am intrigued by how they handle and explain loss. My mother just died and all the rhetoric was about her being with the angels, being reunited with my dad, her parents, etc. When my father died, I was 21, and I returned briefly to the fundamentalist view of my religion in my grief, for certainty about his status after death. But I had an undergraduate mentor, a professor whose daughter committed suicide in high school, and he was not religious, and I was always intrigued by how he handled the grief. He said the pain made him know he was alive. As if the absence of pain is the absence of life. It was an interesting observation for me.


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

yes, but i think sometimes we minimize the value of suffering.

suffering can be heroic and ennobling.

in order to love, there must be the choice to not love. if there is the choice to not love, then there is ghastly 
suffering everywhere around us, just like Siddhartha saw.

The consequence of free will and the choice to love or not love is exactly as the world is today.

love, however transcends and stands triumphant over all that is evil (and make no mistake, suffering is evil).

real love make it worth it. that is the entire judeo/christian paradox.


----------



## TeddieG (Sep 9, 2015)

jorgegene said:


> yes, but i think sometimes we minimize the value of suffering.
> 
> suffering can be heroic and ennobling.
> 
> ...


I SO agree. My favorite author was a journalist in England, who suffered a LOT. And in his late life, writing his autobiography, he wrote about how suffering cleared out all the junk in his life and he learned what was important. He wanted fame, he wanted fortune, he said, at points in his life he felt, oh, if I could ONLY sleep with that woman, I'd be happy (and of course he did and he wasn't). 

Suffering is a very Judeo-Christian concept from the Middle Ages, where people suffered either in imitation of Christ, or because of their roles/status as God's chosen people (suffered at the hands of Christians often, I might add). It gave individual and communal suffering a cosmic meaning though, rather than a purely individual "woe is me" approach. 

But the point is, in those traditions, rather than avoid it, they made meaning out of it. The Buddha was responding to the socio-political situation that still exists in parts of India, which is just to accept that people of a certain strata are destined to struggle, due to ideas of karma and reincarnation. The Buddha was trying to address that just as Jesus was trying to do a similar thing in Roman-occupied Judea.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

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.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

Anon1111 said:


> I think the romantic love thing is tricky.
> 
> If you're looking for romantic love to complete you, you are "dwelling in form" and likely will pay the price.
> 
> I think you must learn to be OK with being alone first.


I wish I could find the article I once read on this.. excerpts taken from this book..  Boundaries in Marriage 

it explains the difference from expecting another to "complete" us.. Yes.. if we are not capable... a whole mature person on our own.. (basically we need to have our sh** together & have something worthwhile to offer another person - to be a help to them)... if we lean too much on the other for happiness - it smothers them, they feel burdened...this is not healthy.

but if (2) mature adults come together...the giving /receiving at play...they COMPLIMENT each other.... this is very healthy. This would be the Interdependent dynamic. I found the chapter in the book here .... 

Completing Versus Complementing


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

jorgegene said:


> yes, but i think sometimes we minimize the value of suffering.
> 
> suffering can be heroic and ennobling.
> 
> ...


I think the Christian concept of love is essentially the same concept of Buddhist enlightenment.

Christian love is supposed to be universal and not conditional. You are supposed to love your enemies.

Jesus went willingly to his death. He was not attached to the form of his body.

What is truly profound and indicative of real truth is the commonality between most major religions.


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

Anon1111 said:


> I think the Christian concept of love is essentially the same concept of Buddhist enlightenment.
> 
> Christian love is supposed to be universal and not conditional. You are supposed to love your enemies.
> 
> ...


*
*

amen!


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Anon1111 said:


> I think the Christian concept of love is essentially the same concept of Buddhist enlightenment.
> 
> Christian love is supposed to be universal and not conditional. You are supposed to love your enemies.
> 
> ...


Yes. Of those commonalities, I consider the Golden Rule the most important. 

A major question I have is why although people invariably want others to follow it, they often do not follow it themselves. 

But the question I would most wish to have answered, of all questions, is how to show people that they would be better off following the Golden Rule.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

Married but Happy said:


> 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*.


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.
For me personally I am at my happiest living right now, I don't dwell on the past and the future is a gift that will always be there till death so no need to expend too much energy on it.

I began to feel pressure to use my energy to focus on the future and found that I was not embracing the current day. We had a great discussion on it, he is who he is and I in no way want him to change to please me, he looked at the way my brain works and saw merit in it. We compromised and spend lots of time together in the here and now, pottering in the garden, bike riding, talking, just enjoying life.
I now participate in discussions about the future, our future, as long as the bulk of time is spent in the present I feel balanced.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Holland said:


> I am an "in the moment" dweller, Mr H is more of a "future" dweller.
> ...
> I now participate in discussions about the future, our future, as long as the bulk of time is spent in the present I feel balanced.


I think you need both. I've always been a planner, had goals and a direction for the future. Without that, I think I'd just drift along and accomplish nothing, not secure my future, etc.. But once those future intentions are formed, it's time to let them go and live in the moment just using them as a directional guide.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

Married but Happy said:


> I think you need both. I've always been a planner, had goals and a direction for the future. Without that, I think I'd just drift along and accomplish nothing, not secure my future, etc.. But once those future intentions are formed, it's time to let them go and live in the moment just using them as a directional guide.


Yes I agree. I'm not talking about being a drifter, no not for me. I am extremely thankful that my future (financial) was set in place a long time ago. 
I am a future planner when it comes to my kids, their education, my personal goals and things I would like to achieve. All good.

In my past marriage I was still a liver in the moment and that is why I think my health suffered in a bad marriage, I was in a constant state of turmoil, desperately wanting to live daily life feeling present but the reality was such a different picture to what I wanted.

Mr H was a future dweller for a different reason, to escape his present which at the time of his previous marriage was a living nightmare. 

We are in a great place, good balance of the here and now and dreams and ambitions for the future.

But like I said, my happy place is in the present, devouring the gorgeousness that is my kids and just generally stopping to appreciate what daily life brings


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Wanda,

I REALLY like this post. 

One of the things that healthy folks do is understand and accept their own limitations and those of their partner. 

This reduces those bone on bone conflicts where someone is confusing their partners lack of ability with a lack of desire to support them. 





WandaJ said:


> Well, that quote works for two committed, and emotionally healthy people. But there are people who won't feel free if they are not allowed for a tantrum thrown at their loved ones once in a while, because it bottles them up. Or they need to go out for the whole night every weekend. Or to flirt around. If they do not do those things they don't feel free. Then what? I do not want my partner to feel free to yell at me, because that releases his tension. Your freedom ends where my freedom starts. Being wiht someone does include some limits, and if you are emotionally healthy this comes organically, so you feel free. But if you are with someone who is not, than this is just a slogan. And my view of humandkind is not very positive...
> 
> all these slogans sound so nice in theory, just put it on the nice picture and share on facebook. The moment you start disecting them, a lot of questions arise.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> Wanda,
> 
> I REALLY like this post.
> 
> ...


this is a difficult distinction to draw in many cases.

if you're of the mindset that anyone should be able to adjust anything if she wants to badly enough, then you can become very frustrated by so-called "limitations."

the way out of this I think is to accept that some people just don't really want to change.

Your wanting them to change more will not change their mind.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Holland,
By FAR FAR FAR the most wonderful thing M2 did for me, was to pull me from the future into the present. 

She is awesome at being happily, fully present, in the moment.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Holland,
> By FAR FAR FAR the most wonderful thing M2 did for me, was to pull me from the future into the present.
> 
> She is awesome at being happily, fully present, in the moment.


I was thinking about this today MEM, early on in the piece Mr H would get to about mid afternoon on Sundays and then it was like he was no longer present in his body. I could almost see his mind go from relaxing Sunday afternoon mode to work more, he would start to get anxious about the start of the work week (and he does have a high pressure/stress job).

One day I asked him to let it go and please enjoy the rest of the weekend with me, being present in the moment. Over time he has trained his mind to do this, to enjoy the down time and live.

My Dad taught me at a young age that there is no point worrying about things in the future for eg going to the Dentist, he would say "you only feel the pain while it is happening, no point wasting time worrying about it till then".


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

People aren't perfect and never will be. Accept that, and when the imperfections manifest, deal with the aftermath lovingly. There certainly can be deal breakers, but many imperfections do not reach that level. The quote also does not mean you are free to behave badly - that is not healthy for a relationship, of course. It does mean let someone be free to express their thoughts and feelings, pursue their goals, discover themselves, grow in whatever ways that fulfills them, etc. Any sound bite platitude - no matter how apt and profound - can be taken to extremes which will make it invalid. They are not intended to apply to the truly dysfunctional and disturbed individuals until they heal from those issues. People want to push the boundary conditions to see how far things can go, but that does not apply to the vast majority of people.


----------



## manfromlamancha (Jul 4, 2013)

JLD I know that you do a lot of reading on the subject and that is why I would say that your own quotes based on your collective reading and empathy are probably far better.

This quote is from a Vietnamese Buddhist monk who gave up the wonderful spiritual world of his native south east Asia to live in the harsh reality of the Dordogne in France! All that awful wine and food! The poor chap. In all honesty he kind of states what you already know and have said in different ways - so yes, I would agree with the Hallmark Card bashing crew here with a healthy dose of scepticism.

Feel free - yes. Feel loved - much more important even if you don't feel as "free". Certain endearing quality to being possessed by someone. My wife doesn't give me any such freedom and I love her to bits for it. I am her willing slave as she is mine. I just don't threaten other men as much as she does other women who even look at me


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Thanks for the compliment, man. 

I did not know that about the author. Yes, he is really _suffering_ there in a beautiful region of France.


----------



## Cosmos (May 4, 2012)

jld said:


> "You must love in such a way that the person you love feels free."
> 
> ---Thich Naht Hahn
> 
> ...


It means that although deeply connected, we are free to develop, progress and grow into the best possible version of ourselves that we can be.


----------



## Deguello (Apr 3, 2015)

In a nut shell,Unconditional Love,that is how I strive to love my wife,she makes that very hard to do,by her own admission.
Deguello


----------

