Love Interferes With Enlightenment

Great Debates
1

The Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh has proposed that Jesus and Buddha are spiritual brothers. He concludes that Christianity and Buddhism are equal paths up the same mountain. His position is not that they are identical faiths, but that they are equally valid expressions of divine truth.

Christ’s two commandments are to Love God, first and then to Love Everyone. I believe these commandments are similar to the Buddhist view of the presence of the sacred in everything.

However I find one topic on which I can’t reconcile the two faiths: Passionate Love.

If I were a true Buddhist, the Passionate Love I feel for my wife would actually prevent my attainment of Enlightenment. Part of reaching Enlightenment, as I understand the path, is to give up your worldly attachments. The passion I feel for my wife keeps me from giving up all of my attachments. I can never be truly Enlightened.

But what if I am a Christian, not of the fundamentalist variety but, rather, the Polycarp, Libertarian, or Triskadecamus variety? How does Passionate Love figure into the equation? If I follow Christ’s commandment to love my neighbor as myself …

::pausing here for erislover to make his masturbation joke::

… does having a Passionate Love for one or more people invalidate my emulating Christ? If I am to love everyone, can I legitimately love some more?

I did not choose the word “more” lightly. I know someone will point out the difference between the Agape of the second commandment and the Eros I feel towards my wife. I, intellectually, understand the qualitative difference of the two. At the same time I feel they may not really be different in type but in quantity.

If Christ’s Second Commandment does preclude Eros, then I can reconcile Buddhism and Christianity completely. I am leaning towards this conclusion, although, it means I’m never going to reach my pinnacle either way.

If Christ’s Second Commandment does not preclude Eros, then I better declare myself Christian. Although, I’ll need convincing that this is a valid conclusion.

BTW, I am not interested in any atheist or Secular Humanist hijack of this thread. I am fully aware of these options and don’t need convincing of the equal validity of these worldviews.

2

Homebrew wrote:

The enlightenment that precludes revelling in wild monkey-sex is not the true enlightenment.

3

Homebrew wrote:

The enlightenment that precludes revelling in wild monkey-sex is not the true enlightenment.

4

This is a really interesting question, and I look forward to responses from more knowledgeable posters than myself. I’m only passingly familiar with Buddhism, and not a Bible scholar either. With that caveat:

in the Gospels, to love God is the highest expression of Law. Jesus in each Gospel says that to love your neighbor as yourself is a natural extension of that; love yourself and your neighbor, and you love God. And regarding passionate love, see this:

This text offers context for loving your wife-- and it obviously includes physical, passionate expressions of love. Any expression love, as long as it is untainted by jealousy or any other negative, is an expression of the love of God.

I found a really interesting page that is devoted to relevant texts from the Bible. Check it out.

5

I am in no way knowledgeable about Buddhism, but I understand that a lot is made of the ideal of “lack of attachment.” I don’t think it necessarily precludes passionate love.

First of all, there’s no reason to be in a hurry for enlightenment. If, according to Buddhism, you don’t make it in this life, maybe you will next time around. Or not. So what? You have until the end of time to be enlightened. If at this stage in your journey you haven’t figured out that passionate love is bad for you*, then I say go for it! Have passionate love affairs. Enlightened teachers may feel sorry for your deluded state of mind, but they won’t judge you, because that wouldn’t be compassionate.

Secondly, all of the above only applies if passionate love really is counterproductive to enlightenment. I’m not so sure it is. Having a lack of attachment doesn’t have to mean living on top of a mountain and forsaking all human interaction in favor of nirvana. It could mean that, if you’re prepared at all times to lose everything (as frequently happens to people in this world), then you will not experience so much pain when and if it does happen.

And being prepared to lose everything means trusting that the universe (or God?) takes care of itself and all is as it should be and there isn’t really anything to worry about at all. Now that’s enlightenment! I say anybody who goes around with that attitude has a perfect religion.

[sub]*I happen not to believe that passionate love is bad for you.[/sub]

6

The issue isn’t that passionate love is a hinderance to enlightenment.

The problem comes if you become attached to the passionate love, thinking that it will last forever.

The biggest thing the Buddha said is that nothing lasts forever, and it is the desire to keep things forever (failing to understand the impermanence of all things, including the soul) that prevents enlightenment.

I don’t have my book on Buddhism here at work with me; if it’s still needed when I get home tonight I’ll be more than happy to quote the pertinent parts.

7

I’m also no expert, and a shaky on this subject as it is not clear what the ‘right’ answer is, but it appears you are correct.

Passionate Love of another individual is very much an attachment and therefore interferes with the Buddhist tenets, and enlightenment.

‘A Bad Thing’ is not a really concept that true Buddhists subscribe to, so I don’t know that it would be considered ‘A Bad Thing’. It would be viewed as an attachment and therefore a cause of suffering.

This life is a jumble of senses and emotions, and remember that Attachment to Enlightenment is to be avoided as well.

I suppose ‘Don’t worry about it’ might be one way to address this issue, but I don’t know if it is the ‘correct’ one.

8

IIRC, the problem from a Buddhist standpoint would not be the passionate love itself but desire, as SisterCoyote says.

On the Christian side, Paul says that those who cannot bear celibacy should marry, noting that this is a concession. See 1 Corinthians, chapter 7.

C. S. Lewis’s book The Four Loves might offer some insight along these lines. I strongly recommend it.

There’s also a great website devoted to the topic of sex as it relates to the Bible at http://www.hobrad.com/and.htm

Hope this helps.

9

I would think that there is no strict contradiction between the two goals.

Buddhism requires the subjugation of ego and the conquering of attachment to temporal, illusory goals toward the end of achieving Nirvana.

Christianity requires the subjugation of the prideful self and the “counting of all things as loss for the sake of Christ” toward the end of Heaven – oneness with God. C.S. Lewis, at the end of his life, had some memorable comments on the impermanence of all temporal things.

It is not passionate love but passionate commitment to God that is called for – out of agapetic love.

And of agapetic love, Don Francisco once sang memorably, “Love is not a feeling; it’s an act of the will.”

It’s my marching orders to love, in that sense, the total jerks we’ve dealt with now and then as much as I love my wife, my son and his kids, my dearest friends.

This does not mean I cannot like the latter better. It’s incumbent on me to recognize that I am only human, and to deal with the emotional reactions they give rise to. And to love myself adequately, since if I detest myself, “loving my neighbor as myself” means detesting them too. Sexuality and erotic love fit into the overall scheme through these two concepts. (Paul’s sexual hangups are obvious in his writing, and related to his belief that one must be “ready for the Second Coming” – true, but not with the urgency he implied.)

10

I think this is Taoism, this basic idea of just being and not worrying all that much. But we do worry and love, and hate, placing us far behind on the enlightenment path from the very beginning. These “attachments” become, for most of us, our own undoing in the end but love, passionate love, I believe was never meant to be a hindurance thrown in your way. The passion for your spouse is fueled by the faith in your belief that you are in love. If it is a whole love without reserve or doubt, it can only assist you on your way toward enlightenment, right? I mean, for Buddism, can’t it be argued that because (and yes I know this is a terrible cliche) basically you are one with your spouse that she is not something that can be cast off but a permanent fixture of you, not just bodily or soulmates but a…well I don’t exactly know how to describe it except to call it a Perfect. Why do you have to walk the path alone in order to leave “the world of dust”?

11

You may have screwed up the coding, but this is beautiful. Welcome.

12

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by droolstic1 *
**

Thank you.

13

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by droolstic1 *
**

It may not be ‘meant’ as an hinderence, but it can easily become one. The ‘issue’ Buddhists might have with the above statement, is that your ‘whole love’ is not. That is to say, when one is fully immersed in passionate love for another individual one can be hyperfocused and blinded a bit.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by droolstic1 *
**

One needs not ‘walk the path alone’ but embrace all things without clinging to them to ‘Be Awake’. Of course this is the stated ideal, and I (for one) am more than happy to be immersed in the world of the senses and suffer occasionally.

YMMV

=)

14

Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, a Tibetan reincarnate lama and one who did a lot to bring Tibetan buddhism to the west, was certainly into having an impressive amount of sex with a wide range of partners.

Of course, you could argue that he was already enlightened before having the sex.

15

Of course, you could argue that he wasn’t…

=)

16

Droolstic1-
What a gorgeous post. I want to agree wholeheartedly,
but I keep getting hung up on your last sentence. As much as I wouldn’t want to walk the path alone, ultimately,
(apology too for the cliche), we will die alone. Therefore, maybe enlightenment could be seen as being hindered by romantic love, because at the heart of it, oneself is the only sure thing one has, and true enlightenment and peace is best achieved with the realization that that must be enough.

17

While not especially reasoned, or perhaps entirely useful, a different, western perspective on this comes to mind: The Ring of the Neibelung. Albreich has to renounce love to smith the ring to rule the world. Considering that most myths are morality plays, do you think this is a similar situation?

18

Not a bad parallel to draw, E-Sabbath, but I think ultimately it’s not illustrative to the point at hand.

IMHO, I think Alberich is more an example of the extreme case of greed and/or megalomania overwhelming all other emotions. In fashioning the Ring, this loveless dwarf (gratuitous Wild, Wild West pun intended) ultimately destroys the world, Valhalla, the hero, everything in fact except the Rhinemaidens and the Ring itself.

Therefore, I think the ultimate message here is that turning one’s back on Love leads to destruction.

(Those who know the original myths please forgive me that all I know of them I learned from the Metropolitan Opera :))

19

Love and attachment to love are different things. The latter treats the former as if it’s a block, a thing; I think it’s more accurate to say, love is a process. An act of will, definitely. Right action, right effort, right mindfulness. The process of love can arise between people out of that–the closer they both are to that elusive “right” part of things, I suspect that the stronger their love is going to be.

Enlightenment’s a slippery thing–and like love, I doubt it’s a “thing”, but a process as well. Too much thinking of it as something that is blocked by other things…well, I would guess that that interferes with it more strongly than real love ever could. But I don’t think it does. If anything, loving and being loved, and not clinging to that but by accepting its ups and downs openly and joyously, that accelerates the process.

As far as the interpretation of nirvana as meaning leaving this dusty Kingdom behind…maybe. Not every flavor of Buddhism places stock in the concept of striving to be a boddhisattva–that’s someone who strives to enlightenment, not to leave the world, but in order to deliberately, effectively, stay behind until everything is free. “For as long as space endures, and sentient beings remain, then may I too stay, to reduce the misery of the world.”

I (gotta use the word) love that sentiment. It’s one that I can’t see being based in anything other than love–agapic love if you prefer, but I do not believe that agape and eros are opposed.

20

-scredle
I totally understand the whole I was born alone so I must therefore die alone thing but, I think I’m still too deep in my romantic age to totally believe that that will have to be enough. I’m just too damn cute, you see. =)

-Homebrew
your welcome, this is a lot of fun to think about :slight_smile:

-cuautemhoc
Thanks and as for coding, I haven’t a farfinkle of a clue so I think I should apologise to the rest of the dopers in advance, eh?

Question though. If you were a christian, would it be correct to say that the passion you have for God, makes you capable of having passion for your spouse? Could it be like one big cycle where, because you love your spouse you love God that much more, and because you love God you love your spouse that much more? So then, since this would obviously make you incredibly content and happy, wouldn’t that make the second commandment cake?