Buddhists and kindred spirits: How do you Love your spouse without attachment?

Question

As I understand it thus far, it is as far from me as those christians who claim they love God more than their spouse.

I cannot imagine Love without attachment, passion, involving myself in the life of the one I love. I cannot look upon the death of a Beloved with the same composure and serenity as I would look upon her in life.

If I did, I could not call it "Love".

And while achieving Spock-like detachment from events may be the goal, it was Spock's buried human passions that cried out to us for release.

He could not cry. Tears were illogical. And so we cried for him.

True detachment sees no difference between the rose and the cesspool. They are both illusion.

But we are human, and not by accident or as a punishment to suffer, but as Life striving to attain harmony within itself through Selfless Love.

Why choose to believe we are born to suffer when we are born to Love?

Answer 1

"Unconditional",
is a tough word for the human being to grasp, is it not so?

Answer 2

That is confusing Love for Attachment.

Love is not attachment. Many have taken love equal to our attachment, but the two are very different things. Love liberates and attachment binds. Love breaks down one’s ego and attachment feeds one’s ego. Love promotes courage and sacrifice, and attachment breeds fear and selfishness. Attachment controls the other person and love sets that person free to grow. Attachment clouds our judgment and love helps us to be objective. Attachment can only be conditional and limited, while love may be unconditional. Attachment is a form of taking, while love is giving.

Death of the Beloved? Who is dying? They do not really die. That is attachment to their form. Only the form disappears, they still exist.

They are likely happier after death, and what do morners do...selfishly grieve because they are not able to continue to 'have' what they had anymore.

There are no buried passions or emotions - I just understand the world differently. There is great joy and bliss...but no attachment to people or things...and death is no big deal.

~ Eric Putkonen

Answer 3

We are not born to suffer. We are born into suffering. There is a huge difference.

One of the central differences between Christianity and Buddhism is this very point. Christianity would have us believe that we are born "sinful" by nature, and that only salvation delivered from an outside source, i.e. God or Jesus, can deliver us from our own evil. Buddhists, on the other hand, believe that we are born naturally inclined toward goodness, possessing no "sinful" nature, and that we are conditioned by our environment, family and culture to grow into whatever we have become. We need no savior or external magic to return to our original pure state of awareness. We need only to cut through the delusions we have erected around ourselves throughout our lives. We are born to love, and we are born AS love. Suffering is optional. But most of us do it because it is what we have learned all of our lives.

Detachment is a difficult concept, especially for possession-oriented western minds. All the stuff we think we own, we're really just using. Was it ours before we were born? No. Will it be ours after we die? Of course not. But we cling to stuff as though it is inherently ours and we have some eternal right to it, when we in fact own nothing but our thoughts and actions and the consequences. Everything else we're just borrowing, because we're just passing through.

Spock-like detachment: an interesting postulation. We'll have a real test of your Star Trek canon here; do you remember Spock's realization after contact with V-Ger? This was a seminal moment in Spock's intellectual and spiritual development, where he finally integrated logic and emotion. I would say that pre-VGer, Spock's detachment was wrong and illogical; post-VGer, he had it right. Given that each of us is different today than we were yesterday, and will be different again tomorrow, we need to be specific in our generalizations. Before VGer, Spock's detachment was as cold and barren as Vger itself; after VGer, different story.

To love one's spouse with appropriate detachment is to be the ultimate in passionate and compassionate; when you understand and accept your spouse's impermanence, knowing with certainty that you both will die; when you accept that and cling NOT to the promises of future times or future happiness or the nostaligia of happiness past . . . THEN you will live and love fully and completely in the moment, holding nothing back, saving nothing for the future. This is the love of detachment, which enables you to live and love in every moment as though it is your last, because you realize that this moment --- THIS VERY MOMENT -- is the only one you have.

Answer 4

My experience is that the key here is not so much about 'attachment' so much but in the realization of impermanence and interdependence.

What is it about our spouse that we are really clinging to? Is it their physical characteristics, certain personality traits, the familial bonded created over time, etc? We don't really have to be attached to these things once we gain insight on our ultimate attachment to all things.

This - I don't believe - is quite the same as Spock-like attachment.

Answer 5

Can you imagine an unconditional love? That's easier description of "love without attachment."
Many of us yell at our family... "How could you do this to me, I loved you so much and sacrificed everything!!!" which... I see a lot of attachment in the self-centered emotion we usually call love.
If you can say "No matter what, I love you" then I see love without attachment.
(It's not that hard concept to swallow, right?)

Buddha said we are born to suffer? Well, after enlightened he felt so sorry for others who are not enlightened I guess,
May I rephrase your statement as, if you don't know we are born to Love, then we suffer.
(Also, don't forget to give Selfless Love to yourself!)

Hug, love and peace~ and a star for your deep consideration!

Answer 6

I think as humans we will end up being attached to come things I think a level of healthy attachment is expected in this physical exsistance.
non - attachment to me is the living in the world and and not "of it" which is very hard these days.
We are spiritual beings having a "human" experience which we need to live to the fullest to glean the lessons therein.
Cheers!
PJ

Answer 7

Buddhists believe life is suffering. There is sickness,death, loss and grief and a myriad of other sufferings in human existence.. It is the way of life. What is forming is emptying and what is emptying is forming. .N'etam mama; N'eso hamasmi; Na me so atta. Sanskrit. translates as This is not mine; I am not this; This is not myself. Interpretaion can also be. this is not my death; I am greater than the death of my body; this grief is not my ultimate conciousness.

Answer 8

Love in eastern religions is different in meaning than love in the western world. Love in places such as Japan and India are seen as acts of duty and loyalty to the family, not blind emotional fixations. You love a family member in eastern society because it is what is expected of you and it maintains order in the social structure.

Answer 9

I think that it is totally natural to be attached to your spouse.

We aren't Vulcan and not perfect Buddhas either.

We have to set the bar by human standards, not by Vulcan or a perfect Buddha standard.

For us, its best to let things run their course and learn from it. Yes, we suffer from our attachments, but we also suffer from denial too. Its our human dilemma.

Answer 10

1)You can not love your wife its lust.
2) Attachement to material world can only be nulified in service of Krishna. Superficial detachment has no meaning.

SSR 7 Exploring the Spiritual Frontier
You refer to the word "love" several times in your letter, but the actual fact is that there is no love in this material world. That is false propaganda. What they call love here is lust only, or desire for personal sense gratification:

kama esa krodha esa
rajo-guna-samudbhavah
mahasano maha-papma
viddhy enam iha vairinam

Krsna tells Arjuna, His disciple, that "It is lust only... which is the all-devouring, sinful enemy of this world." (Bg. 3.37) In the Vedic language there is no word for materialistic "love," as we call it in the present day. The word kama describes lust or material desire, not love, but the word that we find in the Vedas for actual love is prema, meaning one's love of God only. Outside of loving God there is no possibility of loving. Rather, there is lusty desire only. Within this atmosphere of matter, the entire range of human activities--and not only every activity of human beings but all living entities--is based upon, given impetus and thus polluted by sex desire, the attraction between male and female. For that sex life, the whole universe is spinning around--and suffering! That is the harsh truth. So-called love here means that "you gratify my senses, I'll gratify your senses," and as soon as that gratification stops, immediately there is divorce, separation, quarrel, and hatred. So many things are going on under this false conception of love. Actual love means love of God, Krsna.
Everyone wants to repose his loving tendency in some object which is in his opinion worthy. But the question is one of ignorance only, because people have a poor fund of knowledge about where to find that supreme lovable object who is actually worthy to accept and reciprocate their love. People simply do not know. There is no proper information. As soon as you have some attachment for anything material, it will kick you upon the face, deteriorate, and disappoint you. It's bound to dissatisfy and frustrate you. That's a fact.

Answer 11

I can't imagine it either...I love my cat as much as I do any human!

Life is nothing without passion.

(not that I feel passion for my cat, don't get me wrong, but I mean just being involved with things in your life...wait that doesn't sound right either, I mean.....I'll shut up now)