-Buddha
What do you think? Do you agree?
CW
CreativeWoman posted on Jan 27, 2008
| views: 513
-Buddha
What do you think? Do you agree?
CW
Comments
-
quietone said on Jan 27, 2008....
oh, I don't like being the first comment! LOL but I disagree. I love the picture though. -
CreativeWoman said on Jan 27, 2008....
quietone,
I love the picture too. I would love to see a waterfall like that in person. :-)
What makes you disagree with the statement?
CW
-
quietone said on Jan 27, 2008....
Oh, how did I know you were going to ask that question!! I just can't imagine going through life and loving no one... to me that would be a woe in itself. -
CreativeWoman said on Jan 27, 2008....
quietone,
I think "curious" woman would have been another great name for me. lol I do understand your thought there. I kind of took the quote to mean that love brings its own problems with it. There are many ways to interpret it. That's why I thought it might make good conversation.
CW
-
quietone said on Jan 27, 2008....
I think it is a great quote for conversation..and yes, I looked at it a few different ways too, but that one I mentioned seem more outstanding then the rest I thought of. -
evil_twin said on Jan 27, 2008....
I can see the truth in the quote. Loving people can cause a multitude of problems. Especially if you spread yourself too thin and care about too many. But I'd rather deal with the woes of love, than to spend my life alone. I really like that picture too. It's cool!
-evil_twin LA
-
Battycat said on Jan 27, 2008....
I think you must have woes if you love others, you take on their woes. Loving no one means you must have a very meaning less life, so I agree with the quote. I'd much rather have people to worry about than non at at all, what would be the point of life :-)I love the picture too. -
D6fer said on Jan 27, 2008....
I think that is very true sometimes more than others! The grass is always greener on he other side of the fence though isnt it?
I'm sure that buddah must have said that to make people think about it, rather than convince them to live alone!
-
bluegum said on Jan 27, 2008....
hi cw this little duck is going to look and learn and be quiet -
rupert7 said on Jan 27, 2008....
Creative- first a question for you!....in the foreground of that lovely picture...do you see a whirlpool or an oil slick?
I disagree because I believe that to be loveless is the biggest tragedy and therefore the biggest woe!
-
the_infernal_optimist said on Jan 27, 2008....
Yes and no on the quote...I understand (boy, do I understand) that the more people you care about, the more burdens you share - but you pick them up and help with the problems, and feel the sadness of others, because you care - not because you have no choice. In helping others, you help yourself. You grow as a person. And you have to learn to love yourself to some degree to be able to truly care about anyone else. Nice little side effects, eh?
And I would argue that loving other people, even as fairly easily as I do, is more of a positive thing in my life than a negative one. That's fifty or a hundred or however many people who help with *my* woes, and who share their joys and triumphs with me. My burdens are light, my heart is full, and there are so many good things about all the people I hold dear that the flip side just doesn't hold a candle to the ups.
He who loves nobody has no woes from others, but neither does he have any joy.
~Infernal
-
Lucytorial said on Jan 27, 2008....
I purposefully did not read any of the above comments CW.
I think that in essence buddhism is about not latching on to anything in life, the goal is to be in a state of pure love and joy for life itself without having the "woes" of attachments.. it does not mean that you cannot love it means that you allow love to be what it is without trying to change it, just like chi! life essence cannot be changed but can be observed and imbued within oneself..
-
ninjapirate said on Jan 27, 2008....
I kind of think of it as not taking on any possessions, which I believe is something Buddhism says to let go of all of your desires. So perhaps not letting love take hold of you is what he's trying to say? Which I agree with others here wouldn't be worth it. However, I like buddhism, but things like this quote confuse me, and make me think I'm missing the big picture of whats trying to be said. Lots to think about, good post! -
skald said on Jan 27, 2008....
Did he really say that. I read about him but how can you know all. Being sad for 50 people. Well that figures. Creative just my silliness. -
travelr712 said on Jan 27, 2008....
that's a great picture cw! and i agree with buddha. i guess i'd rather just live with 50 woes than have none and be alone, ya know? -
Me-Myself&I said on Jan 27, 2008....
the only woes i have ever had ....were ones that related to my love ones.if i didn't love them, they couldn't hurt me. or what hurt them wouldn't hurt me if i didn't love them. so, i agree. -
vacantmind said on Jan 27, 2008....
I see this the same way you do CW. I think every person brings a possibility of a loss and therefore you are always concerned about there well-being. -
crybabylu said on Jan 27, 2008....
/when you step out and take the risk of loving someone, there are bound to be some problems along the way, but love has so many rewards, that I believe it is worth taking the risk. -
kumarilata said on Jan 28, 2008....
I like this one better....to live is to love.....but I don't think that came from buddha. -
lfbno7 said on Jan 28, 2008....
When you bring another person into your life, the problems of that person will be important to you. Whatever is bothering them will bother you. I suppose that is part of what the quote means. You could also take it other ways, like if you love someone, you will be troubled if that person causes you trouble, not just that they themselves are having trouble. When you think in those terms, the more people you bring into your life, the more problems you open yourself up to. And yet it is sort of a fortune cookie quote. It has a point but it isn't as deep as it sounds, because you can have plenty of problems alone too, and plenty of good things can come from bringing someone new into your life. -
queenparanoia said on Jan 28, 2008....
lovely picture!!! yup you love soeone and you share their problems... but it's worth it!!! =) -
RollingC said on Jan 28, 2008....
Just by itself I think that's a true statement, but I'm not ready to go through life without loving some....maybe not 50 but at least one (dozen). ☺
Rc
-
pit said on Jan 28, 2008....
lovely picture.. can feel the peace by looking at the picture -
silverwhisper said on Jan 28, 2008....
i'm confused why you put that picture together with this blog entry, myself.
i'm vaguely reminded of star wars with that quote: "attachment leads to fear, fear leads to hate, hates leads to the dark side."
that other people's problems become, at least in some measure, one's own when one cares about others is to me a good thing. the quotation completely ignores the fact that there's great joy that comes of knowing other people.
i'm sure for some this quotation may be wise, but to me, it's cynical and defeatist.
ed -
destinydiva said on Jan 28, 2008....
I think infernals comment was perfect! I ditto that :-) gorgeous pic btw -
lfbno7 said on Jan 28, 2008....
Buddhism is connected to a spirit of letting go of earthly cares, a spirit of non-involvement, a search for nirvana, perfect peace and unity with all there is. Earthly attachments get in the way of that. I'm not into that aspect of Buddhism, or for that matter, any religions at all. I consider them all overrated. And that most definitely includes the sterile, boring, selfish concept of nirvana. Didn't like the grunge group much either. Too self absorbed and whiny. I think the point of that quote was that you shouldn't let anyone close, because it interferes with your peace of mind. No sense in sugar-coating it. -
Lolaw75 said on Jan 28, 2008....
Perhaps it means that those who have no woes have no heart or feelings, they don't care for anyone and have no humanity. -
Mamie said on Jan 28, 2008....
I agree with this that love brings its own measure of woes...I don't think though that not loving leads to lack of woe.... and the picture is fascinating! thanks to those of you who offered insight into Buddhism, so very interesting....and peace provoking! (is that an oxymoron?)....thanks CW! -
madstorm said on Jan 28, 2008....
As many people have pointed out, there is Love and there is Love with attachment. Attachment brings the fear of loss of what we are attached too... therefore, as Death is inevitable, love with attachment inevitably carries anxiety and ultimately pain and sorrow.
So can there be love without attachment?
-
Twylarants said on Jan 28, 2008....
I agree with MeMy and Madstorm (love your description, btw.).
If you're talking about falling in love, then...no, I wouldn't want to live my life without the excitement of loving or being loved.
If by woes you mean worries, then yes, I would prefer to never worry about my loved ones. Of course I'm looking at it from an older person's point of view. As Madstorm said, "Attachment brings the fear of loss", and I'm selfish enough to want the people I love dearly to be with me forever.
If I fell in love and that person left me...oh well...I'll get over it. Sounds harsh, but I'll move on. If my loved one becomes ill, and suffers, and dies...no, I won't get over it ever. So I agree with the quote in that context.
Beautiful picture, CW.
Rupe, I think the oil slick you're seeing is just leaves caught up in the swirling water. Wow...these glasses are good!
-
uniquely-ironic said on Jan 28, 2008....
I think that when you love someone you share their woes, however, I disagree that by not loving anyone that you escape woes. You just bear them alone. -
DiscreetPassion said on Jan 28, 2008....
Over thinking maybe not.
Its like a trick question that only you know the answer to.
I do love all the variety of answers!
I would have to disagree.
With the thought that I do love, but rarely let their woes get me. I learned early on that when I cared too much I couldn't sleep. Whereas others lost little sleep over my woes.
So simply can I ask that "If you love less you will suffer less?"
-
CreativeWoman said on Jan 28, 2008....
Wow! I never dreamed there would be this many comments. Thank you all. I will be back a little later to respond. :-)
CW
-
CreativeWoman said on Jan 28, 2008....
As promised, here are my replies....
quietone,
That's understandable.
evil twin,
I agree that love is a better option than being alone.
Battycat,
Glad you like the picture. I agree that love is worth the woes.
D6,
That green grass is tempting sometimes. I think there are different degrees of love too.
blue,
You surely have something to say. :-) Thanks for ducking in.
rupert,
I don't see an oil slick. I see the reflection of the moss covered tree.
Perhaps it depends on who you love as to whether it's worse to be alone.
Infernal,
I understand what you are saying. I sort of look at the quote as being loving in a empathetic way. It amazes me how we all seem to see it a little differently.
Lucy,
You are much more schooled about it than I am. :-) I thought it would be interesting to see how each of us interpreted the quote. Thank you.
ninja,
Thank you. I'm glad you like the post and find it thought provoking. :-)
skald,
I ran across the quote and it was credited to Buddha. That's all I can tell you. If it is in error, please let me know.
trav,
Thanks. I'm not exactly crazy about being alone either.
MMI,
I tend to agree with you.
vacant,
I do agree with that.
cry,
I agree that love is worth the risk of being hurt.
kum,
"To live is to love" sounds much more romantic. Thank you.
lfb,
We all have "baggage" from relationships. I think we unpack some of it when we share our lives with others. Is that what you mean?
queen,
Thank you. I agree. :-)
Rc,
Only a dozen? :-)
pit,
Thank you. I thought it was a peaceful image too.
Ed,
What sort of photo would you have chosen for the post? There was really no rhyme or reason why I chose it other than I liked it and felt it was peaceful to look at. I don't claim to be a schooled philosopher. I only dared to spark conversation. :-)
destiny,
Thank you.
lfb,
I have trouble letting people close in real life. Maybe that's a lot of my problem.
I didn't like the group Nirvana either.
Lo,
That's a good interpretation. I hadn't thought of that one.
Mamie,
Thanks. I'm glad you liked the post. :-)
mad,
Like you, I believe that real love always has attachment
Tywla,
Thanks. I like your reasoning.
UI,
I agree that life will still have woes if we are alone. They might be different than if we were in love, but woes just the same.
Discreet,
I like what you said about it being a trick question only each person knows the answer to. That's a very clever way to think about it. :-)
********
Whew! I hope I didn't miss anyone.
Thank you all.
CW
-
madstorm said on Jan 29, 2008....
CreativeWoman
Ooops!! ... it's seems I'm not good at getting my point across... your reply "Like you, I believe that real love always has attachment" ... isn't what I meant at all. I'm not attached to anyone or anything and I have no woes.
Are people really saying they cannot care, be tender, gentle, affectionate without it being stressful for them?
-
CreativeWoman said on Jan 29, 2008....
mad,
I must have misunderstood. Forgive me.
Love doesn't have to be stressful in a negative way as far as I'm concerned. I look at the "woes" as being something as simple as caring about someone else. If they are down, maybe you feel down too or empathize with them. It doesn't have to be major to be a woe. I guess I don't take the quote literally.
CW