One for the Buddhists (or anyone else!): Love vs Enlightenment

[Dallin]

Okay, I know there are at least a few of you out there...

I've been wondering this a lot of late... how do you view personal (as opposed to universal) love with regards to enlightenment? Are they compatible? Or is part of enlightenment the "ability" (for lack of a better word) to give up such feelings?

My view on Buddhism has always been from a Pagan perspective, in which personal love is greatly cherished - I don't think I would be capable of giving that up. But what do you think? I'm curious...

[~ Monk ~]

Or is part of enlightenment the "ability" (for lack of a better word) to give up such feelings?
My take on it - not at all.

It's not a matter of giving up those feelings but rather how you handle them. For example, would you be so consumed that if you were to lose the person you love you would become a complete wreck?

I believe I've read in a Zen book something along the lines of "To be able to love you must be able to let go." I think that sums up what I'm trying to say here.

I hope this makes sense. Maybe WandererInGrey will have clearer thoughts. :D

[GryphonGirl]

Yes, I am one.

To me Love does not oppose Enlightenment - it is part of it.

[auryn]

Non-attachment and kindness lead to enlightenment. Love doesn't require attachment. You can love someone without your happiness and peace depending upon them.

[GryphonGirl]

Non-attachment and kindness lead to enlightenment. Love doesn't require attachment. You can love someone without your happiness and peace depending upon them.
Well said. Pretty close to what my mother tells me.

[Toby Stimpson]

Love vs. Enlightenment...hmmm, well Siddartha Gautama Buddha described enlightenment as the ending of suffering...yet on a basic level love brings about suffering. Are the two compatible? In my opinion half of it is...but the other half is not. The half that is obsessive, selfdestructive, and narrowminded...that love is as far from enlightenment as a leaf is when fallen from a tree. Love that is devotion, respect, and generally that which nourishes us...body and soul...that love is as close to enlightenment as the star is to universe. Namaste.

Galadraal

[WickedBttrfly]

You cannot be enlightened, I think, if you cannot love. However, if you lose yourself in the pursuit of love, then that is definitely not a part of enlightenment. Basically its what everyone else has said. If you can love and let go, you're there.

[Isa]

Basically the idea of no attachment does not mean being devoid of feeling. One can be enlightened and still experience love, hate, fear, anger, etc, etc, etc. The point is not to hold on to the duality but to accept things as you experience them. So you get mad, but rather than holding on to that you let it go. You experience things in the moment but don't try to judge them as good or bad.

Example, when you try to (using your example) hold on to love, you determine it to be a good feeling and you want to experience more. So you cling to the concept of love and try to perserve it in your life. By doing so you also identify things that are not "love". You judge the "love" as good and the other things probably as "bad" and create a dualistic worldview. The problem is that the world is never black and white, good or evil and Buddhism says that this worldview leads to suffering. No matter how hard you try you can't create a situation where all you have is good ... Judging things as good or bad creates the illusion of a seperation that will always disappoint you. Therefore Buddhism says, just let it all go. You will experience both pain and pleasure in your life and you have no control over that (you have some control over the hows and whens but not on the existence of pain or pleasure), if you try to control it you will only upset yourself, so just don't think about it. No attachment doesn't refer to no emotions, or no possessions or anything like that, it refers to no ego. No concept of "I".

There's an excellent book on the finer points of this philosophical concept called "You Have To Say Something" by Dainin Katagiri I suggest you read if you want a better explanation :D

[Dallin]

Interesting... thanx guys :) I'll need to think on this a bit before I say more, but thanx :)

Any other thoughts, anyone?

[moonstone_dreams]

Thanks for asking the great question, and thanks for the responses. They were really... well, not 'enlightening,' maybe illuminating? You know what I mean. :)

[Dallin]

Okay, now that I have a bit more time to reply...The point is not to hold on to the duality but to accept things as you experience them.This I find to be an incredibly interesting comment (in a good way ;) ) if also quite confusing :D (I'm by no means picking on the statement here! Au contraire, I'd like to better understand it.)

I've always thought that for balance to be maintained (which it always is) that "good" must always be contrasted by "bad" (for two examples) and that if one becomes stronger, the other will increase in proportion to it - a contrast thing. It's like, the sun we see as bright, but only because the rest of the sky is darker than it.

Is this outlook... for lack of a better word, "un-Buddhistic?" :whatgives

I've always felt that the essence of Buddhism is really the core to my true religion, but I have to admit I still struggle with the "no attatchment" concept (all in due time :D ) I mean, my mix of Buddhism and Wicca seems to work quite well, but I think that the Buddhist concepts I struggle with are the ones I can really learn from...

Please, any more comments, speak up! :D

[Tangerines]

Well, I've learnt along the lines of Soto Zen, where one tends to be taught to stay away from the 'E' word. It becomes this goal to attain, and when it becomes a goal, it becomes unattainable. You can love; living life is essential to finding the greater truth. Zen isn't about achieving some sort of trippy nirvana; it's about getting to the core of what reality is and accepting it.

[Dallin]

But... isn't it really the same thing? Isn't enlightenment, at its core, understanding reality? That's certainly how I've always thought of it.

(I'm NOT arguing here! I'm finding this quite interesting :) Please, continue!)

BTW I like your the "pacifist, not pushover" graphic in your sig line :thumbsup:

[Isa]

Well first I should mention that there are many different sects of Buddhism, I study Japanese Rinzai and Soto Zen (which are essentially the same except for one point) and on rare occasions poke my head in Tendai :D

That being said....

From a Buddhist perspective the problem with that outlook is that there is nothing purely good or bad in this world If you interview for a job and don't get it then it's "bad" for you, but "good" for the person who got the job instead. Everything is relative to your viewpoint. When we define things like "black" and "white" we inevitably come across a gray or two that doesn't fit either. Buddhism points out that you can't possibly see the truth if your worldview is filled with little things here and there that don't fit, but rather than suggesting a better way to categorize things Buddhism says just stop trying to define the world. See the world as it is and don't think about it

A strictly Buddhist person would certainly frown on your outlook, but Buddhism is often mixed with other Asian philosophies including Taoism. Taoism has those contrasts, but they are not concrete, definite things. If you picture that principal symbol of Taoism (the yin-yang) in your mind you'll notice that they're a little bit of white in the black and a little bit of black in the white ... the two parts also form a circle because philosophical Taoism accepts the concept of opposites and contrast, Taoists do not see them as seperates. A pair of opposites is one unit, one thing cannot exist without the other. This viewpoint is not incompatible with Buddhism. Taoists rarely see an event, an item, or anything else as purely yang or yin but rather a mix of the two. Furthermore Yin and Yang are very kept vague concepts ... Buddhism's problem with concepts of "good and evil" is that they're specific things that don't fit reality, Yin and Yang encompass many opposites. So for a Buddhist with a Taoist background the outlook you mentioned needs only a bit tweaking .

Plagh XD Hope that made sense!

[Tangerines]

We don't like to use that word, though, because it sort of implies that you know everything, or lots more than other people. One of my favourite quotes comes from Brad Warner, speaking on a quote of his teacher's. I'll have to paraphrase, but, "When you attain enlightenment, you are king of the world." Warner adds, "Just don't expect everyone to notice." What I take it as him trying to say is this: reaching the core of reality is special, but it's not so special that it will set you completely apart from the human race (an impossibility in and of itself). It's not as important as the journey you take to reach it, because through the journey you will come to understand the concept of oneness in the universe.

You can love someone with all your heart, but many monks choose not to follow romantic pursuits because they feel it distracts them. Mind you, this is a traditional view. Brad Warner is married, and works for a Japanese movie and television company (the makers of Godzilla). His teacher, Nishijima, works for a make-up company or something like that (as well as being a priest of high rank). If you want more information on him, look for the Dogen Sangha on the internet.

And thank you. Made it myself. :)

[hamletincarnate]

tangerines, "Zen isn't about achieving some sort of trippy nirvana; it's about getting to the core of what reality is and accepting it." ....excellent description. this is what draws me to buddhism - the willingness to tackle the nature of reality rather than make excuses for it.

dallin - i am also a blend of wiccan buddist ideals. it is nice to meet another :)