Anyone with a non-attachment (like Buddhist) type marriage here?

[Joules]

I've read on the web, but I would love to hear personal experiences from someone who has experienced or seen this in real life. There are definitely parts that I have trouble seeing. I can't really see it as a true "love" relationship yet. It seems to me more of an arranged marriage, but arranged by the participants. Can a relationship really change to that? Or does a relationship have to start that way?  Feel free to PM me if you want to share privately.

ETA: This is more a question of one party converting to a non-attachment religion like Buddhism, and what happens to that marriage, than any comment on arranged marriages. That was probably a bad example on my part. I just meant that some of those don't end up as love marriages, but just marriages of convenience, with the parties living their own lives, caring for their kids, but somewhat indifferent to each other.

Edited October 2, 2018 by Joules

[Jean in Newcastle]

I know lots of very happy arranged marriages.  Yes, the people learned to love each other.  There was compatibility there in many of them because the go-between specifically brought people together who had compatible beliefs and values and interests.  Some of these people (all Japanese) were Buddhist.  Some atheist.  Some Christian.  It was a cultural thing - not a religious thing.  The couple do meet before the wedding and do have a chance to say no. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

PS - my father was a go-between for a lot of arranged marriages between Christians since the choices there were from a smaller pool of people.  We had tons of match-making discussions over the dinner table over who might be compatible. 

[Joules]

1 minute ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

I know lots of very happy arranged marriages.  Yes, the people learned to love each other.  There was compatibility there in many of them because the go-between specifically brought people together who had compatible beliefs and values and interests.  Some of these people (all Japanese) were Buddhist.  Some atheist.  Some Christian.  It was a cultural thing - not a religious thing.  The couple do meet before the wedding and do have a chance to say no. 

I definitely know many happy arranged marriages. It's more the non-attachment that I wonder about. When you don't come from a culture of non-attachment but a culture of marriage as security (which many arranged marriages do), it seems hard to transition that mindset.

[Pawz4me]

I think I must be confused or misunderstanding, and probably shouldn't be commenting because I don't have personal experience. I only dabble in Buddhism--I find it to be an extremely helpful philosophy. I'm not a Buddhist. But it seems to me that you think that Buddhist aren't attached to/don't feel love or a connection to their spouses or children? If so, I don't think that's correct at all. It seems to me that Buddhism is mostly just a different way of keeping things in perspective. But I could be totally wrong.

[Joules]

1 hour ago, Pawz4me said:

I think I must be confused or misunderstanding, and probably shouldn't be commenting because I don't have personal experience. I only dabble in Buddhism--I find it to be an extremely helpful philosophy. I'm not a Buddhist. But it seems to me that you think that Buddhist aren't attached to/don't feel love or a connection to their spouses or children? If so, I don't think that's correct at all. It seems to me that Buddhism is mostly just a different way of keeping things in perspective. But I could be totally wrong.

Not at all, I’m not communicating well. Which happens when one is trying to share very little detail. I’m not disparging a perspective of love at all, and I’m not even sure if everyone who adheres to a non-attachment philosophy applies it to marriage. 

Here’s the deal. A converts to this sort of non-attachment philosophy. Spouse, B, is trying to understand as this detachment is painful. It’s in B’s best interest to learn about and understand this new form of love and figure out if a marriage in this new paradigm is right for her.

[Liz CA]

I am not sure I understand what a non-attachment marriage would look like? Can you give examples?

[Lady Marmalade]

I've seen this with distant family.

Started out as a happy marriage, happy family.  They were involved in their faith somewhat,  but weren't really "all in" I would say.  Then Spouse A decides to go deeper and all in with this way of thinking.  Decides that the marriage has not actually been healthy for anyone- that the attachment is a stumbling block to the "true path" in life as far as the religion goes.  Counseling ensues for both parties.  Spouse B just cannot come around to this way of thinking and the end result is divorce.  Spouse B happily remarries less than 2 years later and is very happy.  The children seem fine with the whole situation.  I have to admit, Spouse A does not seem happy from a distance- not like they once were.  I've seen dating happening lately, and I wonder what that's like.  Dating without attachment?  That seems like foreign concept to me.

That's all the information I know.  Not close to this family, and only watched this happen via FB and through what other family has mentioned.  

[Jean in Newcastle]

http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/20886/non-attachment-and-love-and-marriage

This helps explain the concept. It doesn’t mean that there is no love or attachment at all. 

I am not Buddhist but as a Christian my highest allegiance is not to my family either but is more broadly defined. 

[Joules]

55 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

I am not sure I understand what a non-attachment marriage would look like? Can you give examples?

I'm not the best person to answer, "What does this look like?" is the question I was asking, albeit poorly.

Jean's link is good. This is from the link:

Quote

Instead of seeing your spouse and your children as the ONLY people in the world you love that much, you use your strong feelings for them to build your love and compassion for everyone, attempting to get as close to feeling that strongly for everyone, not just your spouse/children/whatever.

I love my family. But they are not my world. My world is vast, and they are a wonderful part of it. But they aren't all of it. My happiness, my success as a person, my compassion and love are not dependent on them.

I think there is a traditional (Judea-Christian?) idea that the spouses hold a special place in each others' lives. This idea dilutes that and makes it uncomfortable for someone who is still in those values from another tradition. I have no value judgement on the whole thing, it's just we grow up with, and possibly marry with, one view, and it can rock someone's world to try to cope with another view.

[Joules]

58 minutes ago, Lady Marmalade said:

I've seen this with distant family.

Started out as a happy marriage, happy family.  They were involved in their faith somewhat,  but weren't really "all in" I would say.  Then Spouse A decides to go deeper and all in with this way of thinking.  Decides that the marriage has not actually been healthy for anyone- that the attachment is a stumbling block to the "true path" in life as far as the religion goes.  Counseling ensues for both parties.  Spouse B just cannot come around to this way of thinking and the end result is divorce.  Spouse B happily remarries less than 2 years later and is very happy.  The children seem fine with the whole situation.  I have to admit, Spouse A does not seem happy from a distance- not like they once were.  I've seen dating happening lately, and I wonder what that's like.  Dating without attachment?  That seems like foreign concept to me.

That's all the information I know.  Not close to this family, and only watched this happen via FB and through what other family has mentioned.  

Thanks! That seems like the natural progression to me (except A isn't the least bit interested in counseling). B would like to try to come around, but it just seems like a hard shift. Without adopting the whole of a religion, how do you just accept that your spouse is no longer attached to you, when that is the crux of what a marriage was to you? (The children are adults so there is no issue there.)

[Ravin]

I would start with: how is this actually changing the way Spouse A treats Spouse B? Philosophy is not as important as the ground situation.

[Amy in NH]

It was my understanding from World Religions class in college that there are some Buddhists who choose to let go of all of their attachments as they enter old age.  They leave behind spouse, children, family, close friends, etc., and become monks in the pursuit of enlightenment.  Is this what you mean?

[SamanthaCarter]

“Essentially metta is an altruistic attitude of love and friendliness as distinguished from mere amiability based on self-interest. Through metta one refuses to be offensive and renounces bitterness, resentment and animosity of every kind, developing instead a mind of friendliness, accommodativeness and benevolence which seeks the well-being and happiness of others. True metta is devoid of self-interest. It evokes within a warm-hearted feeling of fellowship, sympathy and love, which grows boundless with practice and overcomes all social, religious, racial, political and economic barriers. Metta is indeed a universal, unselfish and all-embracing love.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/buddharakkhita/wheel365.html

Agape has been expounded on by many Christian writers in a specifically Christian context. C. S. Lewis, in his book The Four Loves, used agape to describe what he believed was the highest level of love known to humanity – a selfless love, a love that was passionately committed to the well-being of the other.”

This is a very high bar, though a noble pursuit. Who better to practice it on than ones family? 

[Faith-manor]

Boy Joules, I don't know about the spouse A/spouse B thing with the two being in different places mentally and emotionally in the relationship within the paradigm you describe. I do know that for most of my friends love hasn't been the glue that holds their marriage together. Love went out the window a long time ago. Most are still married, mutually agreed to with spouse, for the sake of convenience. They either have kids to finish parenting, or complicated financials and it isn't yet worth the legal nightmare of dividing it up, or don't want to deal with the drama of divorce within their extended families. Now that said, none of them have found someone else they want to attach to either which makes the marriage of convenience okay. There is a certain contentedness with where they are in life. Some have a total lack of affection in their marriage, others have a modicum, sort of how you might feel toward a friend. Not your best friend, but a friend.

In my own case, I still love Dh and he still loves me. If love were everything its cracked up to be, there would be no worries. Well, love as it turns out is kind of like elmer's glue. It's okay to hold some substances together after a fashion, but if you really don't want it to come apart, you need 15 hr epoxy which means one spouse provides chemical A, and the other spouse provides chemical B so when they combine and harden, you are hard pressed to rip that apart. Both of us have test tubes that have nothing but fumes left. The fumes are trying really hard to share electrons, but it is a lot of smoke under the vent-hood and not much product if that makes any sense. For the sake of our kids and the ease of dealing with finances, we could probably make a friendly roommate situation work these days. But, currently, I still feel attached to him, and he is maintaining that he still feels attached to me.

In terms of transferring my love or energy or affection to a more ecumenical kind of life pursuit, I don't think that would happen. I do have children and a grandchild that I adore, but my marriage converting to one without attachment between dh and I, would not make anything different as it pertains to them. I don't think it would change my societal outlook, my view on affection or working to the benefit of others. But, since I've not been raised with this culturally, I am sure I don't understand it. Without cultural background and with so much baggage of my own cultural upbringing, I don't think I would ever understand it or put it into practice.  I hope others can help you more.

But, in terms of marriages without romantic, physical, or mental attachment to the partner, yes, those I've known. They go okay when both partners are willing. I suspect that at some point though they will fall apart due to someone deciding he or she can't live forever with someone who is not attached to them because we've all been raised with a different viewpoint of the marriage relationship so obviously different expectations. I don't think its wrong for Spouse B to call it quits and move on if the marriage is causing pain. I used to be of the "marriage forever" bandwagon in my younger days. Now I've seen too much to think people should remain in relationships that are slowly killing them inside.

[Liz CA]

35 minutes ago, Joules said:

I'm not the best person to answer, "What does this look like?" is the question I was asking, albeit poorly.

Jean's link is good. This is from the link:

I think there is a traditional (Judea-Christian?) idea that the spouses hold a special place in each others' lives. This idea dilutes that and makes it uncomfortable for someone who is still in those values from another tradition. I have no value judgement on the whole thing, it's just we grow up with, and possibly marry with, one view, and it can rock someone's world to try to cope with another view.

 

Jean's definition /explanation is a good one. So...am I understanding that you think some people are so dependent on their spouses / children that they could not imagine life without them? Naturally, it would be horrific to lose your family or even your spouse but with some healthy grieving, outside support (friends, support network, etc.) one can work through this. Life will be different but it's not over yet.

What made me wonder was the choice of the word "attachment." Yes, I think if you have a spouse, it's a good thing to be attached to him or her. However, as already said, everyone still has a life of their own. We choose to merge somewhat in marriage, become attached, work through things together but we are not giving up who we are (or it seems better if we don't). My dh plays golf, I have no interest in it. I like to take walks, he is not one for long walks. This does not mean we are not attached but we are not constantly sitting in each other's pockets. Ideally, both build a satisfying life, cultivate their interests, share their passions.

[Joules]

23 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

Jean's definition /explanation is a good one. So...am I understanding that you think some people are so dependent on their spouses / children that they could not imagine life without them? Naturally, it would be horrific to lose your family or even your spouse but with some healthy grieving, outside support (friends, support network, etc.) one can work through this. Life will be different but it's not over yet.

What made me wonder was the choice of the word "attachment." Yes, I think if you have a spouse, it's a good thing to be attached to him or her. However, as already said, everyone still has a life of their own. We choose to merge somewhat in marriage, become attached, work through things together but we are not giving up who we are (or it seems better if we don't). My dh plays golf, I have no interest in it. I like to take walks, he is not one for long walks. This does not mean we are not attached but we are not constantly sitting in each other's pockets. Ideally, both build a satisfying life, cultivate their interests, share their passions.

To the first bolded, no, I didn't mean that. I just meant the difficultly when Spouse A says, "Yeah, I love you, but no more than anyone else."  I meant that makes Spouse B sad and wondering whether to stay, not dependent. 

As to the second, "non-attachment" is the word used by the religion, not mine. I'm just trying to understand. As far as I can tell it's more seeing marriage as "this is working right now for both parties, when it doesn't we split." versus a "in sickness, in health, til death" sort of philosophy. From my perspective, I have no problem with divorce, but I think it's hard for your spouse to have a "Whatever" attitude, if you didn't start with that.  On the other hand, it's probably more honest, because most marriages don't last (and probably even more shouldn't). I'm not even entirely sure if Spouse B should be hurt or upset, though I understand completely why.

To everyone, I do apologize for so poorly communicating. I just want to see things through the eyes of others.

[Joules]

41 minutes ago, SamanthaCarter said:

“Essentially metta is an altruistic attitude of love and friendliness as distinguished from mere amiability based on self-interest. Through metta one refuses to be offensive and renounces bitterness, resentment and animosity of every kind, developing instead a mind of friendliness, accommodativeness and benevolence which seeks the well-being and happiness of others. True metta is devoid of self-interest. It evokes within a warm-hearted feeling of fellowship, sympathy and love, which grows boundless with practice and overcomes all social, religious, racial, political and economic barriers. Metta is indeed a universal, unselfish and all-embracing love.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/buddharakkhita/wheel365.html

Agape has been expounded on by many Christian writers in a specifically Christian context. C. S. Lewis, in his book The Four Loves, used agape to describe what he believed was the highest level of love known to humanity – a selfless love, a love that was passionately committed to the well-being of the other.”

This is a very high bar, though a noble pursuit. Who better to practice it on than ones family? 

That's lots to unpack and read. Thanks!

[Joules]

49 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

Boy Joules, I don't know about the spouse A/spouse B thing with the two being in different places mentally and emotionally in the relationship within the paradigm you describe. I do know that for most of my friends love hasn't been the glue that holds their marriage together. Love went out the window a long time ago. Most are still married, mutually agreed to with spouse, for the sake of convenience. They either have kids to finish parenting, or complicated financials and it isn't yet worth the legal nightmare of dividing it up, or don't want to deal with the drama of divorce within their extended families. Now that said, none of them have found someone else they want to attach to either which makes the marriage of convenience okay. There is a certain contentedness with where they are in life. Some have a total lack of affection in their marriage, others have a modicum, sort of how you might feel toward a friend. Not your best friend, but a friend.

In my own case, I still love Dh and he still loves me. If love were everything its cracked up to be, there would be no worries. Well, love as it turns out is kind of like elmer's glue. It's okay to hold some substances together after a fashion, but if you really don't want it to come apart, you need 15 hr epoxy which means one spouse provides chemical A, and the other spouse provides chemical B so when they combine and harden, you are hard pressed to rip that apart. Both of us have test tubes that have nothing but fumes left. The fumes are trying really hard to share electrons, but it is a lot of smoke under the vent-hood and not much product if that makes any sense. For the sake of our kids and the ease of dealing with finances, we could probably make a friendly roommate situation work these days. But, currently, I still feel attached to him, and he is maintaining that he still feels attached to me.

In terms of transferring my love or energy or affection to a more ecumenical kind of life pursuit, I don't think that would happen. I do have children and a grandchild that I adore, but my marriage converting to one without attachment between dh and I, would not make anything different as it pertains to them. I don't think it would change my societal outlook, my view on affection or working to the benefit of others. But, since I've not been raised with this culturally, I am sure I don't understand it. Without cultural background and with so much baggage of my own cultural upbringing, I don't think I would ever understand it or put it into practice.  I hope others can help you more.

But, in terms of marriages without romantic, physical, or mental attachment to the partner, yes, those I've known. They go okay when both partners are willing. I suspect that at some point though they will fall apart due to someone deciding he or she can't live forever with someone who is not attached to them because we've all been raised with a different viewpoint of the marriage relationship so obviously different expectations. I don't think its wrong for Spouse B to call it quits and move on if the marriage is causing pain. I used to be of the "marriage forever" bandwagon in my younger days. Now I've seen too much to think people should remain in relationships that are slowly killing them inside.

Yeah, mine's nearly over and I'm still coming to terms with that myself. I think the key to the other situation is the bolded. They just aren't on the same page. A feels like he has a higher truth, B wants more from a marriage than indifference. We both haven't had a real job in 20 years which makes the details really hard to work out. It's hard to be stuck with a spouse that isn't in love with you anymore, because staying together is the only financially feasible option.

Edited October 2, 2018 by Joules

[chiguirre]

12 minutes ago, Joules said:

To the first bolded, no, I didn't mean that. I just meant the difficultly when Spouse A says, "Yeah, I love you, but no more than anyone else."  I meant that makes Spouse B sad and wondering whether to stay, not dependent. 

As to the second, "non-attachment" is the word used by the religion, not mine. I'm just trying to understand. As far as I can tell it's more seeing marriage as "this is working right now for both parties, when it doesn't we split." versus a "in sickness, in health, til death" sort of philosophy. From my perspective, I have no problem with divorce, but I think it's hard for your spouse to have a "Whatever" attitude, if you didn't start with that.  On the other hand, it's probably more honest, because most marriages don't last (and probably even more shouldn't). I'm not even entirely sure if Spouse B should be hurt or upset, though I understand completely why.

To everyone, I do apologize for so poorly communicating. I just want to see things through the eyes of others.

I think Spouse A is missing the point. The goal is not diluting down your love for your spouse, it's supposed to be increasing your love for all people.

(To be honest, I think Spouse A is looking for an excuse to end the marriage and non-attachment seemed like a good one.)

[Liz CA]

20 minutes ago, Joules said:

To the first bolded, no, I didn't mean that. I just meant the difficultly when Spouse A says, "Yeah, I love you, but no more than anyone else."  I meant that makes Spouse B sad and wondering whether to stay, not dependent. 

As to the second, "non-attachment" is the word used by the religion, not mine. I'm just trying to understand. As far as I can tell it's more seeing marriage as "this is working right now for both parties, when it doesn't we split." versus a "in sickness, in health, til death" sort of philosophy. From my perspective, I have no problem with divorce, but I think it's hard for your spouse to have a "Whatever" attitude, if you didn't start with that.  On the other hand, it's probably more honest, because most marriages don't last (and probably even more shouldn't). I'm not even entirely sure if Spouse B should be hurt or upset, though I understand completely why.

To everyone, I do apologize for so poorly communicating. I just want to see things through the eyes of others.

 

This makes more sense to me now. Thanks for clarifying. Yes, it would be puzzling to feel spouse feels no different if you leave or if you stay. Especially, if this is a recent attitude change and s/he has not made this stance clear prior to marriage. It makes me wonder why someone who feels this way would want to be married? Marriage, in its very essence, is a sign of commitment and attachment. Would someone who feels this way treat their marriage like an open marriage? Or if not outright open marriage is it a *shrug* "If you go - I can replace you with someone else" type of thinking?

[Jean in Newcastle]

8 minutes ago, chiguirre said:

I think Spouse A is missing the point. The goal is not diluting down your love for your spouse, it's supposed to be increasing your love for all people.

(To be honest, I think Spouse A is looking for an excuse to end the marriage and non-attachment seemed like a good one.)

Exactly. It shouldn’t be “I love you but no more than anyone else “ but “I love you and am now (trying to) love others just as much”. While the end result might be an equality of love (though conceivably without sex for all) it is in theory supposed to be an expansion of love. 

[Liz CA]

18 minutes ago, chiguirre said:

I think Spouse A is missing the point. The goal is not diluting down your love for your spouse, it's supposed to be increasing your love for all people.

(To be honest, I think Spouse A is looking for an excuse to end the marriage and non-attachment seemed like a good one.)

 

It's sounding a little like it, doesn't it?

[Rosie_0801]

44 minutes ago, chiguirre said:

I think Spouse A is missing the point. The goal is not diluting down your love for your spouse, it's supposed to be increasing your love for all people.

(To be honest, I think Spouse A is looking for an excuse to end the marriage and non-attachment seemed like a good one.)

 

And pulling that neat trick men wanting to end a relationship do, which is try to get her to end it so he doesn't look like the bad guy. 

[KarenNC]

4 hours ago, Joules said:

Not at all, I’m not communicating well. Which happens when one is trying to share very little detail. I’m not disparging a perspective of love at all, and I’m not even sure if everyone who adheres to a non-attachment philosophy applies it to marriage. 

Here’s the deal. A converts to this sort of non-attachment philosophy. Spouse, B, is trying to understand as this detachment is painful. It’s in B’s best interest to learn about and understand this new form of love and figure out if a marriage in this new paradigm is right for her.

 

The thing that jumped out at me was "convert." The vast majority of new converts to anything, religion or otherwise, don't have a mature understanding of what precepts actually look like when the rubber hits the road over the long term and tend to a very literal and sometimes extreme interpretation. I'd also be curious about whether spouse A is part of an established, mature community with a guidance structure for new converts by more mature community members or is doing this solo, which makes the extreme and literal more likely.

[Ravin]

2 hours ago, Joules said:

To the first bolded, no, I didn't mean that. I just meant the difficultly when Spouse A says, "Yeah, I love you, but no more than anyone else."  I meant that makes Spouse B sad and wondering whether to stay, not dependent. 

As to the second, "non-attachment" is the word used by the religion, not mine. I'm just trying to understand. As far as I can tell it's more seeing marriage as "this is working right now for both parties, when it doesn't we split." versus a "in sickness, in health, til death" sort of philosophy. From my perspective, I have no problem with divorce, but I think it's hard for your spouse to have a "Whatever" attitude, if you didn't start with that.  On the other hand, it's probably more honest, because most marriages don't last (and probably even more shouldn't). I'm not even entirely sure if Spouse B should be hurt or upset, though I understand completely why.

To everyone, I do apologize for so poorly communicating. I just want to see things through the eyes of others.

"Attachment" particularly in the Buddhist sense, is not the same thing as commitment or fidelity or attraction. It might be clearer if Spouse A said "I am working to love everyone as much as I love you and the kids." It's not showing love for anyone to open your mouth and sound like an @ss.

[Joules]

12 hours ago, KarenNC said:

 

The thing that jumped out at me was "convert." The vast majority of new converts to anything, religion or otherwise, don't have a mature understanding of what precepts actually look like when the rubber hits the road over the long term and tend to a very literal and sometimes extreme interpretation. I'd also be curious about whether spouse A is part of an established, mature community with a guidance structure for new converts by more mature community members or is doing this solo, which makes the extreme and literal more likely.

I think that may be exactly the problem! I've definitely seen that in Christianity, but hadn't thought about it in other circumstances. At the least there is a communication issue of what it means, and y'all are getting it third (or fourth) in the telephone game.

[gardenmom5]

this is a quote from the article jean linked that the op posted.

I love my family. But they are not my world. My world is vast, and they are a wonderful part of it. But they aren't all of it. My happiness, my success as a person, my compassion and love are not dependent on them.

  I'm not going to articulate this well, - but this sounds like in simpler terms, - just being emotionally healthy.  I think of the women whose entire sense of worth/being/identity is tied up in their children/family - and they grow up and move away and these women are lost and don't know what to do with themselves.  or else they continue to seek to control/parent them from a distance just as they did when their children were preschoolers. (and tick off their now adult children.)

it doesn't preclude loving your spouse/children, or having your life intertwined with them - but you still have your sense of individuality.   I guess, I see it as the difference between a parasitical relationship vs a symbiotic relationship. 

But I also as part of my belief system is #1 priority is my relationship with God, then *myself* (becasue if I don't take care of me - how can I take care of another?), then my spouse, then my children, then others.   (I have known people who don't think about anyone outside themselves/maybe their immediate family.  it's a pretty narrow focus)

 

if that makes any sense  . .   .

[gardenmom5]

just as there is a hierarchy of needs, there is a hierarchy of priorities.

someone may think they can make everything the same priority level - but in reality, it's not practical.

it's possible this person is interpreting their new beliefs as  "everything has the same priority" - when that simply isn't practicable.

[gardenmom5]

17 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

Boy Joules, I don't know about the spouse A/spouse B thing with the two being in different places mentally and emotionally in the relationship within the paradigm you describe. I do know that for most of my friends love hasn't been the glue that holds their marriage together. 

In my own case, I still love Dh and he still loves me. If love were everything its cracked up to be, there would be no worries.

I observed long ago - love waxes and wanes in a relationship, and there is more choice than would normally be thought.  marriage is a choice, and it is work.   as both parties are willing to work, it strengthens love that it goes deeper. outside circumstances of life - will push and pull both in directions where they must find a new balance in themselves - and how that changes the relationship.   if both parties are willing, those things can strengthen the relationship, as well as respect for each other.  personally, I think there are more important things than love in a marriage relationship.  (e.g. mutual respect,  trust.)

we had an acquaintance who was a MFT.  he used to say "it takes two people to be married, and one person to be divorced."

sadly, there are even older adults, who think love is all about that gaga stage in a newer/young relationship, and that if that goes then they must not love their partner and it's automatically time to move on.

17 hours ago, Liz CA said:

 

Jean's definition /explanation is a good one. So...am I understanding that you think some people are so dependent on their spouses / children that they could not imagine life without them? Naturally, it would be horrific to lose your family or even your spouse but with some healthy grieving, outside support (friends, support network, etc.) one can work through this. Life will be different but it's not over yet.

What made me wonder was the choice of the word "attachment." Yes, I think if you have a spouse, it's a good thing to be attached to him or her. However, as already said, everyone still has a life of their own. We choose to merge somewhat in marriage, become attached, work through things together but we are not giving up who we are (or it seems better if we don't). My dh plays golf, I have no interest in it. I like to take walks, he is not one for long walks. This does not mean we are not attached but we are not constantly sitting in each other's pockets. Ideally, both build a satisfying life, cultivate their interests, share their passions.

there are "some people" who are that dependent.

 

16 hours ago, chiguirre said:

I think Spouse A is missing the point. The goal is not diluting down your love for your spouse, it's supposed to be increasing your love for all people.

(To be honest, I think Spouse A is looking for an excuse to end the marriage and non-attachment seemed like a good one.)

uh, yeah.  just an excuse.

[Matryoshka]

14 hours ago, Ravin said:

"Attachment" particularly in the Buddhist sense, is not the same thing as commitment or fidelity or attraction. It might be clearer if Spouse A said "I am working to love everyone as much as I love you and the kids." It's not showing love for anyone to open your mouth and sound like an @ss.

This.  I do not think that word means what he thinks it means...

[ktgrok]

This is eerily similar to me and my ex husband - who when we got engaged was planning to attend the seminary to be a minister! I've still got a bad taste in my mouth about Buddhism....for him it lived out as "not bother with anything, because nothing matters anyway". So, since you shouldn't have an attachment to a house, why bother work to pay the mortgage, etc. I'm sure it isn't ACTUALLY that way, but for him it was a lazy man's religion, a way to just read books and not DO anything. Or work for anything, because hey, if you strive for something (like a good marriage) you are showing attachment. 

We did not stay married. That was not the only reason, but it was a reason. I don't think Buddhism caused it though. 

[Ravin]

3 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

This is eerily similar to me and my ex husband - who when we got engaged was planning to attend the seminary to be a minister! I've still got a bad taste in my mouth about Buddhism....for him it lived out as "not bother with anything, because nothing matters anyway". So, since you shouldn't have an attachment to a house, why bother work to pay the mortgage, etc. I'm sure it isn't ACTUALLY that way, but for him it was a lazy man's religion, a way to just read books and not DO anything. Or work for anything, because hey, if you strive for something (like a good marriage) you are showing attachment. 

We did not stay married. That was not the only reason, but it was a reason. I don't think Buddhism caused it though. 

 

It does sound similar! I think my first response, after some thought, as Spouse B would be to suggest Spouse A shift his (misplaced) focus on his marriage and work on letting go of attachment to his own ego. I think if he's getting it mostly from books, I'd insist he go to a retreat (preferably with me) to learn and get some counseling from well respected teachers who know what they're talking about.

[gardenmom5]

2 hours ago, Ravin said:

 

It does sound similar! I think my first response, after some thought, as Spouse B would be to suggest Spouse A  work on letting go of attachment to his own ego. I think if he's getting it mostly from books, I'd insist he go to a retreat (preferably with me) to learn and get some counseling from well respected teachers who know what they're talking about.

this made me laugh.