[Buddha-l] Being in Love

[jkirk]

Catalina schreef:
>  attachment...isn't?
------
>   Yes, but a very dangerous attachment. I cannot help feeling it's better
to be in love with your partner then with your country. If the latter is the
case, the youthcamps of Hitler, Stalin and Mao are just one step ahead, and
that is not a comforting thought. Off course these days the most famous
love-your-movement advocates are Hamas and the Taliban.
Erik
-------

The Buddha did not specifically take up the :"issue" of "being in love", aka
romantic love or infatuation with a sex partner, because in his time there
was no such idea. The moral man (women's needs and desires were not much
attended in ancient times) was either "in lust" so one procreated children,
with one's wife (or wives and concubines if a royal or rich man), or one was
busy doing everything else one has to do to stay alive and provide for one's
responsibilities. If one was a monastic, one's vows and practice presumably
dealt with the problem of lust. The bhikkhunis who Stefan mentioned as
joining the sangha due to disappointed love, might have been disappointed by
broken marriage proposals, as in those days a woman had no choice but to
become a wife or a prostitute. Becoming a nun opened up a rewarding new way
of avoiding either one of those end games. 

The ideal of romantic love originated within European cultures, as a
spiritually ennobling obsession (recall the knights, their ladies, and what
the troubadours sang about). This practice kept male knights ever longing
for their beloveds, to whom they pledged their hearts, even as the rules
were that this love could never be sexually consummated. Eventually, as
"western" society became more secularized, romance began affecting other
classes of the society to the point that by the last century if not before,
it came to be represented as the main goal for finding a marital partner.
One had to fall in love, get engaged, then married. (Among the elite
classes, romantic encounter as a preface to marriage wasn't usually an
option, as their marriages were arranged on the basis of wealth and social
status. Thus, romance was reserved for extra-marital affairs. Think of
Admiral Nelson and Lady Hamilton.) 

The literature on the psychology of romance, of being in love, usually
points out the obvious: that being in love doesn't last because it is a
state of being infatuated (deluded, as others have already said here). The
romantic is thus doomed to repeat, as he or she futilely searches for the
perfect partner who will complete her or himself, always to be disappointed.
So if one is urged to go on with it, as a means of temporary pleasure, one
would hope that a Buddhist would keep her or his eyes open to the inevitable
dukkha of the game: ultimately unsatisfied craving. Loving is different from
"being in love with" --hopefully, even if a marriage or a partnership begins
with romance, it evolves into mutual love--caring-- between the partners,
even though the illusions have vanished. 

Joanna






  

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1283 - Release Date: 2/16/2008
2:16 PM