What we need here is a more strongly typed language. It does us no good to equivocate, for example, all the definitions of “faith” each time we use the word “faith.” Similarly, passion falls under such a spell. Just because we may use such a word in multiple contexts in no way requires that the word have the same semantic meaning in all contexts. As far as the English language goes we can almost guarantee that the interpretation of a common word is apt to change depending on the context.
As such, I find the usage of “passion” in the sexually attracted sense and “passion” in the deeply committed sense to be, shall we say, sloppy (in this thread, that is; of course I would use the words otherwise). My masturbation joke in Poly’s thread is indicative of just why sloppy language use can lead us to “false enlightenment.” “Love others as I love myself” does not necessarily mean “acting love out on others as I would act love out on myself” but this is preceisey the trap we are setting for ourselves here.
While I am no scholar on either Buddhism or Christianity I can certainly say that I am deeply interested in semantic distinction. I’d say it was my hobby, but I play too many video games for that to be true. on the boards, at least, I very often “resort” to semantics, and though people find such a “tactic” ultimately frustrating I find that trying to make bold claims without first constructing a base level of semantic distinction to be, well, masturbation (choose your own interpretation of the word there :)).
So, the question remains: does physical attraction for loved ones actively hinder or outright eliminate metaphysical enlightenment? My answer: hmmm. Consider that if there was some “ultimate truth” to understand in order to achieve enlightenment then how you get there is factually unimportant. Hell, you could kill a guy who had achieved it (expressed it in written language, say), and then take his book. Voila: enlightenment.
Instead let us posit that one must achieve enlightenment; that, in some way, act is what is important. There is no ultimate truth but instead the very act of trying to achieve enlightment is what matters. From what I understand about Buddhism this is also not the case because the path itself is not able to be meaningfully expressed and actively searching for enlightenment will not get you there. As such, I think Buddhism and Christianity are fundamentally opposed long before we even bring up the question of physical attraction.
Maybe attachments don’t always prevent enlightenment. I live in a physical world so I can’t understand how I can be enlightened without being attached to it.
Marc, Boy, there are a bunch of books that’ll have to do for an explanation for that question. Not being a Buddha nor a bhodisattava, (heck, I’m not even Buddhist!) I can’t answer it.
But back to the love thing - I had the opportunity to talk with a friend of mine who is a Buddhist this weekend, and her take on it was as follows:
When we love someone, we have to understand that since there is no “us” and there is no “them” (in the Buddhist sense as practiced by those who share beliefs with my friend) that what we are feeling is the love of the “one-soul” for everything.
Sr. Coyote, I think that you have targeted the conceptualization of oneness-with-the-Absolute mediated through love for a part of cretion quite aptly.
And, by the way, I read your “not a scholar of Buddhism or Christianity” with the same sense of irony as Amos’s “neither a prophet nor a prophet’s son” – and ask to study humbly at your feet.
I’m not a Buddhist scholar, but my small understanding of the what Buddhism teaches in regard to passionate love of another person is that it is a difficult path, on which attachment and desire are more likely to occur and create the entanglements that can obscure enlightenment.
Enlightenment is simply understanding the true nature of things. As Sister Coyote’s friend has said: to a Buddhist, enlightenment is understanding that one’s ego, and the temporal body that gives rise to it, is an illusion; there is no “me” and “other”, but an encompassing unity at the ground level of being. If you’ve acheived this understanding, you should be able to love another truly, with more depth of passion for the delight in the realization of what a wonder the light in another human being’s eyes and heart is. You can experience joy, and help another experience joy, as well.
The difficulty comes about when you view things as static, become possessive, and forget the natural ebb and flow of another: expecting them to become the solution in which you dissolve your needs. From my bit of Buddhist training, the most important practice is to learn to dissolve your own negativity and needs. If you can do that(not that I’m particularly good at it), then the rest is a sharing of time with others, and gleefully appreciating them as companions. That’d be the best love, and no hindrance to enlightenment.
The path may be more difficult, but trying to love another unselfishly can stretch the old ego envelope to the point that it busts it’s seams with the best of human nature. If that (for lack of a better word) energy is used correctly, you don’t need the mail to get around anymore.
My dear Polycarp, do you have any idea how you flatter me when you say things like this? Seriously.
Marc, this is probably worth a thread of its own, but the primary idea you have to get your head around (and this is the generic you , not you specifically) in order to understand the concept of non-attachment is to understand that there is no you. Meaning, there is no “everlasting” self. When we die, if we are sufficiently enlightened, we go back to being one with everything, and the individual self ceases to exist. However, even in life there is no “self” - we are all part of the universal being (whatever it is), and therefore a sense of self is the least critical thing.
Again, YMMV, and I’m only trying to explain what I understand of the underlying thought behind Buddhism. Keep in mind, too, that Buddhism is in its own way almost as splintered as Christianity, so what I’m saying may not be agreed upon by all Buddhists.
