[Flankrene]

My ego (my mind) had almost driven me insane in the past because I didn't have enough love in my life. Now I have a good wife that gives me a lot of love, but I'm finding love is not constant. I'm not constantly around her, and occasionally we have an argument.

Just like everything in this universe, love seems to be temporary as well. So why does our ego/mind want it so much? Our ego is constantly hungry for it, but it is never satisfied. But I have never understood what "love" is. I mean, could you define it? Sometimes it seems like nothing more then an invention that was imagined up. You can't reach out and touch it.

I believe I have had an epiphany. I believe love is the currency of the ego.

What is currency? If you hold a dollar bill, it is just a piece of paper. If you look at the numbers in your bank account, they represent only something that is imaginary. Yet people are constantly hungry for more, and are never satisfied with the amount they have. There is no such thing as having enough.

The ego constantly wants more. Look what those constant drives have created. For a long time I have looked at large business buildings and thought to myself, "all of that was created for a reason that is imaginary."

But my topic today is what love is. Why do people like to cook wonderful meals? Why do people like to paint beautiful artwork? They may make a living doing it later, but why do they like to do it in the first place? I think it is so people will appreciate them. I think that love is their motivation. Where would we be without love? I've always wanted to start a family, but now that I have a wife the reason has changed. I find I want to make a better living and have kids for her happiness. I'm much more motivated to do these things now.

Maybe love only exists to motivate us. To be a drive. Just like money. The currency of the mind.

Does this sound true? I am excited to hear everyone's feedback. Is my understanding expanding, or am I completely off the mark?

[Equackasous]

Hi PreviousViking .... the drive that you are referring to ie. the getting of attention and positive affirmation from others can be very strong indeed.

[GinaIsWild]

I'm finding love is not constant.

Hi PV,
Nothing is. Nobody can be expected to radiate love non-stop.

I have never understood what "love" is. I mean, could you define it? Sometimes it's mixed up with our own selfish needs, other times it's altruistic.

You can't reach out and touch it. Like happiness. You rarely know when you've got it but you always know when you haven't.

I believe love is the currency of the ego I don't think so. The Ego is the currency of the Ego. Me, me, me. My needs, my feelings, my opinions, my ideas, my whatever...

The ego constantly wants more. True. The Ego is always on the take. Love gives.

I find I want to make a better living and have kids for her happiness. I'm much more motivated to do these things now. It's for both of you.

Maybe love only exists to motivate us. To be a drive. Just like money. The currency of the mind. Many things (not all of them wholesome) motivate the mind. Love may do so too.

Is my understanding expanding, or am I completely off the mark? If you had to sacrifice something to save someone you love and you would do so unconditionally, then whatever else you may expect love to be, that is love. Nobody is perfect, we do what we can.

[wCYvMKAc]

Hi PV,

2 cents:

IMO,

Love do not craves and do not clings. Do not has ownership.

Because many people were raised without love means that love has to be learned and practiced as it is the case of the Dhamma.

Love has to begun with ourselves. To respect us, to take care of us, to know about us and to response to us.

Like not taking intoxicants, not drinking, not cheating, not killing life.

Wanting more and more is not love... is craving... the source of suffering.

Anxiety about being all time together, no giving room enough to each other, fearing abandonment isn't love, but clinging... source of suffering.

Love understands the other, takes care about his needs and feelings, respects the other and is responsible about the other.

But beyond this, Gotama Buddha left teachings about loving each other when having a boyfriend or girlfriend, a wife or husband.

I can't remember right now the sutta, PV, but for sure somebody will give you the quote or later on I will look for it.

[Mangoman]

I can't remember right now the sutta, PV, but for sure somebody will give you the quote

Possibly AN 4.55: Samajivina Sutta : Living in tune


excerpt:


Husband & wife, both of them
having conviction,
being responsive,
being restrained,
living by the Dhamma,
addressing each other
with loving words:
they benefit in manifold ways.
To them comes bliss.
Their enemies are dejected
when both are in tune in virtue.
Having followed the Dhamma here in this world,
both in tune in precepts & practices,
they delight in the world of the devas,
enjoying the pleasures they desire.


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....055.than.html

[oliverlogo]

That's it. Beautiful...!

Thanks Aloka,

[!!!maryann!!!]

Lovely quote Aloka

Am just wondering (and not going off topic exactly...) when considering love between 2 people in a relationship, how important others feel it is that their partner is Buddhist? Would be interesting to have thoughts on this one

[Sierabiera]

Hi Moonfeet

Personally I don't think it should matter if only one person is a Buddhist. What's important is mutual loving kindness and respect for each other within a harmonious relationship.

with kind wishes

Aloka

[JessePex]

Hi PV

You may well be aware of this, but the Greeks had 4 words for love. Parental, friendship, sexual and unconditional. The closeness to, need for, attraction toward, and so on are different ways of expressing our emotions. What we generally (and I believe you are) refer to as love is the mutual inter-dependence of two people. Personally, I don't like the use of the word in this context, but most people get upset with the idea that such strong emotions do not constitute love. In this context there is a battle of wills and a focus on compromise. We may need each other, but it doesn't mean we love each other.

[DouseAuthott]

You may well be aware of this, but the Greeks had 4 words for love. Parental, friendship, sexual and unconditional.

Hi Joshu

You may not be aware of this, but the Buddha had at least 4 words for love. Filial affection (piya), friendship (mitta), sexual (raga) and unconditional (metta-karuna-upekka).

Speculatively, the ancient Greeks possibly derived their understanding of eros, philia and agape from Buddhism

[Coellacag]

My ego (my mind) had almost driven me insane in the past because I didn't have enough love in my life. Now I have a good wife that gives me a lot of love, but I'm finding love is not constant. I'm not constantly around her, and occasionally we have an argument.

hi PV

i concur with the sentiments of Joshu

sexual & filial love are based in instinctual drives, therefore they can never be constant because they are conditioned by moodiness

if you wish to take an interest in Buddhism, then it is important to take an interest in 'upgrading' to learning unconditional love

for example, in Buddhist training, you should aspire to never have an argument, given arguing is individual selfishness & anger

instead, you & your wife can have "discussions" about differences in opinion (rather than "arguements")

love takes many forms, such as gratitude. in buddhism, the word for gratitude is 'kattanukavetti', which means 'what others do for me; what i must do in return'

because we need each other, it is wisdom to recognise this reality & humble ourselves to this reality

there are may aspects to higher love but Buddha taught this begins with gratitude towards our benefactors

with metta

element

[KuznehikVasaN]

Hi Joshu

You may not be aware of this, but the Buddha had at least 4 words for love. Filial affection (piya), friendship (mitta), sexual (raga) and unconditional (metta-karuna-upekka).

Speculatively, the ancient Greeks possibly derived their understanding of eros, philia and agape from Buddhism

that's probably the case. i tend to think that most attitudes were led from the earlier civilisations and those seem to me to be from the Indian sub-continent.

[vioppyskype]

Hey guys,

for example, in Buddhist training, you should aspire to never have an argument, given arguing is individual selfishness & anger

You are right. We actually don't argue often, and I do everything I can to avoid arguments. Actually we get along very well.

In American culture, the word "love" is thrown around to easily. So much so that one can easily forget what it really is. I know that my wife has brought me a new interpretation of the word because I constantly find myself wanting to sacrifice for her. It makes me wonder if I really felt love before.

[fabrizioitwloch]

Hey guys,



You are right. We actually don't argue often, and I do everything I can to avoid arguments. Actually we get along very well.

In American culture, the word "love" is thrown around to easily. So much so that one can easily forget what it really is. I know that my wife has brought me a new interpretation of the word because I constantly find myself wanting to sacrifice for her. It makes me wonder if I really felt love before.

PV.

Americans bastardize the language. Don't listen to that, or base it on that. Awesome for example. To be filled with awe, unusual, amazing and so on. Listen to the ease with which the Americans use the word. It is ego. they want to elivate their ordinary experience into something extraordinary. The fact is - the word is not the thing.

[grizolsemn]

But back to the question.

Love is when I am not. When I am, love isn't. We tend to exist from the inside out, starting with me, or I. Love cannot be when the me is at the centre. The me is always there of course, but it doesn't have to be at the centre. Less me, more room for everything else, most importantly love. That's why it is refered to as impersonal. Actually, love is only a word. A word which is not easily understood. Like beauty, and intelligence. Maybe these are different words that we use to understandthe same thing? maybe these different words reflect our understanding of something that is very difficult to understand? Love, beauty, intelligence - what is the difference when ther is no me?

[newpiknicker]

...from the Indian sub-continent.

from Buddha; from Buddhism; from Greco-Buddhism

[Cyzkrahu]

But back to the question.

I constantly find myself wanting to sacrifice for her.

Buddha taught sacrifice (caga) is an esssential requirement for successful relationship. In two teachings about relationship, Buddha included sacrifice in both of them.

The compatible couple: there are principles for partners in life to ensure their compatibility, providing a firm foundation for a long married life, called the four qualities for a good match (samajivi-dhamma):

Sama-saddha: having compatible faith; they uphold the same religion, revere the same objects of worship, concepts, beliefs or principles, and share the same lines of interest - they are equally firm in all these or can reach agreement on them.

Sama-sila: having compatible morality; they have conduct, morality, ethics, manners and upbringing which are harmonious or compatible.

Sama-caga: having compatible generosity; they are in accord, not conflict, with each other in their generosity, hospitality, munificence, sacrifice and readiness to help others.

Sama-panna: having compatible intelligence; they are sensible and can understand each other; they can at least reason with each other.

A Constitution for Living: Buddhist Principles for A Fruitful and Harmonious Life by Ven. PA Payutto The couple sharing in goodness: the four principles for leading the household life (gharavasa-dhamma) can be used by a couple in the following ways:

Sacca: truthfulness; being truthful and faithful to each other in thoughts, speech and deeds.

Dama: training; exercising restraint, training themselves to correct faults, resolve differences, adapt to each other and improve themselves.

Khanti: patience; being firm, stable and patient; not reacting impulsively to each other's affronts; enduring difficulties and hardships and overcoming obstacles together.

Caga: sacrifice; being thoughtful, able to give up personal comfort for the sake of one's partner by, for example, foregoing sleep in order to nurse him or her in sickness; also being kind and generous, not uncharitable, to the relatives and friends of one's partner.

A Constitution for Living: Buddhist Principles for A Fruitful and Harmonious Life by Ven. PA Payutto Universally acknowledged as Thailand's foremost Buddhist scholar, Venerable P. A. Payutto's works range widely, from detailed exposition of the Suttas and Vinaya to consideration of the problems of society, environment, economy, law and science and technology -- all of these books and talks are based on an exceptionally profound and comprehensive grasp of the Buddha's Teaching.

The Works of Ven. P. A. Payutto

[rvadipoldkov]

But back to the question.


Buddha taught sacrifice (caga) is an esssential requirement for successful relationship. In two teachings about relationship, Buddha included sacrifice in both of them.

I really can't imagine Buddha said these quotes. They are almost certainly someone else's words.

[invasuant]

I really can't imagine Buddha said these quotes.

the quotes are a contemporary explanation, by P A Payutto, Thailand's foremost Buddhist scholar, of the following teachings:



Ākaṅkheyyuṃ ce, gahapatayo, ubho jānipatayo diṭṭhe ceva dhamme aññamaññaṃ passituṃ abhisamparāyañca aññamaññaṃ passituṃ ubhova assu samasaddhā samasīlā samacāgā samapaññā

If both husband & wife want to see one another not only in the present life but also in the life to come, they should be in tune [with each other] in conviction, in tune in virtue, in tune in generosity and in tune in wisdom.

Samajivina Sutta Yadi saccā dammā
cāgā, khantyā
bhiyyodha vijjatī
Kathaṃ nu dāni puccheyyaṃ
puthū samaṇabrāhmaṇe

Now, go ask others,
common brahmans & contemplatives,
if anything better than
truth, self-control,
endurance & relinquishment
here can be found.

Alavaka Sutta Cāga [from cajati, to give up, Vedic tyaj. Cp. Sk. tyāga]

(a) abandoning, giving up, renunciation

(b) liberality, generosity, munificence

http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/phi...1.pali.1070424 buddha's enlightenment was not the eradication of concepts but the comprehension of the realities of nature

this is Buddhahood: comprehending the realities of life so sound advice can be given to all people in all situations

thus in Buddhahood, one is a spiritual master, a psychologist, a sociologist, an environmentalist, a counsellor; all things for all people



By comprehending all the world,
All in the world just as it is,
From all the world he is released;
In all the world he clings to nothing.

AN 4:23

[JohnMaltczevitch]

I really can't imagine Buddha said these quotes. They are almost certainly someone else's words.

Do you practice with an offline group Joshu ?

How long have you been studying what the Buddha said ? I don't think you've ever told us - and it would be nice to know a little more about you.


with kind wishes

Aloka