When is it love? When is it attachment?

One important lesson that I’ve learned as a young Christian back then was to get the cultural context of these religions sprang up in. In fact, I was driven by the maddening impulse that the words of the New Testament weren’t enough, there was just too much that the Bible assumes you already know and much that can’t add in. Thankfully, my pastor was a real scholar.

I know Indians quite well, as I have grown up in a country where half the population consists of racial minorities.

Indians idolise material success. BMWs, Beverly Hills mansions, billion dollar IT firms and of course, fair skin. This is their religion that Hinduism tried so hard to break in order to save it from social chaos and destruction. It’s an unspoken truth that the Indians who have the almost as much success as the Indians with the best characters are also the ones who will murder the person who exposes their true colours. Am I so much better as a Chinese? I too have idols to break every day. At least, unlike those Indians, I can break the idols of lies without a second thought.

The success of Hinduism resulted in a society that consists of people who seemed doomed to be of a certain class or sink to the bottom in their lifetime. Imagine being middle class; you cannot help but pull strings and make threats so that your children will have a brighter future or else their afterlives turn to vinegar. Always the rajahs are crushing you with their thumbs from above while your employees are always plotting the demise of your enterprises. Hence, an oversimplification of their suffering, their attachment.

The Buddha saw this and understood much. He told the crowds that attachment is suffering. Many disciples with questionable loyalties made the definition of attachment as general as possible, so that even feeding the neighbourhood orphan is also condemned attachment. The Buddha was powerless to stop the corruption of his doctrine because a part of what made his rebellion against social strife also made him pliable to stakeholders with loyalties towards false righteousness. Buddhism as we know it today has a multitude of embellishments by people who know how to paint false pictures.

It is okay to feel the love you feel. I say this as a man who has known the love of a blonde woman. This bond is not of the condemned, whatever the turncoats say. Turn it into a mighy oak of legacy. Be blessed.

Buddha truely loved everyone, no matter what they did, he didn't end up suffering.

His 'true love' was given a term as compassion. He 'truly loved' to the extent that no matter what devdutta did, he always preached and showed him Noble 8 fold path.

His 'love-talk' and 'true-love talk' were always same, " pleasure is dukkha, everything (including every relationship) is impermanent so don't let craving/aversion disturb you or make you unhappy".

It's the image(inside our mind) of someone with whom we remain attached within. This craving is dukkha, this image is not permanent,... such were the lovy-dovy talks of buddha.

Buddhism teaches compassion instead of love:

==============

Compassion (karuṇā) has the nature of being moved by the suffering of others. The sadness we might experience over the suffering or loss of a loved one is not true compassion. Such sadness is sentimental, a manifestation of grief. Real compassion arises when the mind, detached from self-referential concerns, is stirred by the suffering of others, feeling the suffering as its own.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel322.html

Don’t worry, almost everyone is very confused about love and what it is. We confuse it and bind it up with other emotions both negative and positive and this is what causes the confusion.

Fortunately, real love is simple and clear to define and once you understand what it really is you can begin to unravel all the confusion.

Love is nothing more than the wish for another to have happiness.

That’s it. Really. It is that simple.

It is defined as one of the four immeasurable minds which we should practice and develop. And now that you know what love is... I will tell you what compassion is.

Compassion is nothing more than the wish for another to be free from suffering.

Again, very simple and clear and another of the four immeasurables. And you will notice that love and compassion are like flip sides of the same coin.

All the rest that we normally associate with “love” and “compassion” are just confusions of other emotions usually involving attachment and/or aversion.

In your question you cite examples of love that people feel for there partners and/or children. Most people do genuinely love both their children and partners, but also feel all kinds of attachment and desire and wants and other non-virtuous emotions towards them as well. Once you are clear on what real love is ... see above ... then the question becomes what are these other emotions we associate so often with love and what is the nature of them? Are they virtuous? Non-virtuous? Do they cause happiness in ourselves or others? Suffering? Like that...

Love is loving (=accepting) as is. "As is" means, without condition or boundary like "only when".

Love that adores one thing and rejects the other is not real love "as is", it is attachment or preference. Love that divides the world into the loved and the unloved is not real love, it is attachment or preference.

Real love is Nirvana. I know this is hard for you to understand. Let me elaborate. Real love is loving everything as is, without aversion, without boundaries. Love is the true nature of mind. When mind is free from attachment, aversion, confusion - what remains is suchness, also known as love.

When is it love?

There's Buddhist doctrine about the brahmaviharas which are three different kinds of love ...

• I hope you're well
• I don't want to hurt you
• I rejoice in your virtue/success

... plus equanimity as the fourth.

If you loved your partner unconditionally, you would be OK with that

In the old days before "no-fault divorce" people (in Anglophone countries) used to sue each other for adultery: and the alleged "damage" used to include Alienation of affections.

I think the theory was that if your partner was adulterous then you'd be receiving less affection from them -- an affection which should have been, as their spouse, rightfully yours.

And I think that contradicts your premise, i.e.

My understanding is that love is something you give away without expecting anything in return.

I think another Buddhist theme is that, you do things because they (actions/intentions) are morally right or virtuous. Conversely you don't do things just because you feel like it (e.g. presumably shouldn't hurt people if or because you feel angry).

Because we expect them, and demand, that they behave in a way that doesn't hurt us or make us suffer, that we are attached to the idea that your partner is only yours to have?

I guess that -- expecting behaviour -- might work if you can form a contract, have a meeting of minds, with a sane and reliable partner.

Conversely some people (sometimes children) don't like conforming to other people's expectations.

With such a one, unreliable, a possible winning strategy might be (I don't know if this is applicable to you, feasible, or Buddhist -- but based on experience) if they ask e.g., "What do you expect me to do here?", reply, "I don't expect you to do anything. You can do..."

Then provide a safe environment, where they can't easily hurt themselves. And the necessities of life. And age-appropriate toys or tools. And good friends, some enjoyable group/social activities -- role models.

I think that behaviour/misbehaviour is partly conditioned/dependent -- if somebody is seeking some liberation then perhaps it's wise to ensure their environment is moral, safe, sane, unoppressive and with opportunities for them to be or to become good friends themselves.

Can you truly love someone with no attachment so that no matter what they do, you do not end up suffering?

I think so if you're semi-enlightened.

You suggested already that you can have children without their causing your suffering.

If I know children, they'll transgress in various ways, large or small -- and you're probably supposed to interact with them and correct their behaviour -- maybe without stopping-loving them though.

There's some doctrine here about choosing a spouse or partner, for what that's worth -- preferably one who is equal.

I think that a or the key to "not suffering" is to behave ethically. There's a sutta Kimattha Sutta: What is the Purpose? (AN 11.1) which begins ...

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "What is the purpose of skillful virtues? What is their reward?"

"Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda, and freedom from remorse as their reward."

"And what is the purpose of freedom from remorse? What is its reward?"

"Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward."

"And what is the purpose of joy? What is its reward?"

"Joy has etc.

I equate that "freedom from remorse" with non-suffering -- "I do not regret it".

See for example Sīlānussati

In context I think that an example of sīlānussati might be Akkosa Sutta: Insult (SN 7.2) where the buddha seems to be happy.

In my experience that happiness might be in retrospect, i.e. good behaviour now leads to "joy" later.

See also What is the basis?