Ben wrote:I think it was Charles Bukowski who said Love is a mad dog from hell. Despite his drug and alcohol addled brain, I think he was onto something there.
I've also seen it written somewhere - another sentiment that I agree with - Love is the mother of misery. Better to find these truths out for ourselves, early, than to continue to live in delusion.
Take care Manapa!
What does your wife say about that?
There are some things, dear Tilt, that are best not mentioned. Otherwise, its to the dreaded counselling couch or dog-house I go!
As a psychologist, I think she agrees with me that many forms of love border on the pathological. In fact, a lot of her work dealing with adolescents is in relation to the negative impacts of blooming romantic love.
Well, just having a small bit of teasing of Ben,
Tilt, you are such a tease! Life just wouldn't be the same without a little tease from Mr Billings!
retro wrote:It depends on how you define love, doesn't it?
Perhaps. If you are talking about romantic love, then it is no more than a sankhara.
We live in cultures that reify romantic love but as Buddhists, we should be looking at it through the prism of vipassana, seeing it for what it actually is. Love is nothing but coalescing dhammas.
That is not to say that it can't be useful or positive in providing a glue in relationships, but it is still a sankhara and one that is not exempt from ti-lakkhana. It is impermanent, it is not-self, and any clinging or attachment certainly does produce intense dukkha. Yet, time and time again, we (collectively speaking) fool ourselves that our love is eternal, never ending and part of us.
If you are talking about the brahma-viharas - they're completely different. They're cetasikas.
now that I've opened yet another can of worms, off I go!