Buddhism teaches that all phenomena are empty of inherent existence (śūnyatā). This includes not only material objects but also the self, other beings, and even emotions and concepts. Yet, the cultivation of love , compassion, and empathy is central to the Buddhist path. Other philosophical or religious systems offer clear metaphysical grounds for love: - In Advaita Vedānta, love is said to naturally arise from the realization that all beings are ultimately the same Self (ātman). - In Bhakti traditions like Vaishnavism or even other theistic religions like Christianity, love is grounded in the belief that all beings are ' divine eternal souls', either a portion of God, or children of God. But Buddhism does not appear to endorse either of these metaphysical views. If everything is empty from a Buddhist perspective, wouldn’t that imply that emotions like love, compassion, and empathy are also empty and devoid of inherent existence? Then why should one love at all? How can these qualities be understood, justified, or cultivated within the framework of emptiness? Looking for answers grounded in Buddhist philosophy, ideally drawing from classical texts or traditional commentaries, to better understand how this seeming paradox is resolved.

I come from a Theravada background because I like how seriously they (forest tradition) take the Vinaya, and their pragmatic approach to the teachings. But in my opinion Theravada doesn't understand love. Many suttas speak of the benefits of ethics as it pertains to concentration. Other suttas speak of "looking after others to look after yourself". Other suttas speak of the kammic benefits of making merit. The logic is simple: do good and you will be rewarded. But that is not caring for another, it is not metta or love or what have you. It is child logic, like how you might motivate a child to clean their room or look after their sibling. Truly caring for another is looking after their welfare, for the sake of their welfare. Your motivation is seeing their benefit. Your joy is in seeing their benefit. This relates to another point. Love is a taboo word. But love doesn't just mean erotic or overly attached love. Love can be of a universal kind. Love can mean to expand your circle of concern for others. Truly and deeply you feel sympathetic joy, compassion, and kindness for them. What motivates love is not self gain, my own narrow sense of merit or pride or a negative sense of moral shame. What motivates love is caring about another being. Personally, I think love is the truth at the heart of the way. Otherwise, why did the Buddha teach? Why not live in bliss and ignore the rest of the world? But he didn't do that, and he didn't do it to make merit. He did it 100% for the sake of the benefit of sentient beings, motivated by their benefit. At least, I hope so. Is there a tradition in which this selfless conception of love is found and celebrated?

> “Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule.” This quote by the Buddha makes no sense to me. Firstly and perhaps tangentially, it speaks of an "eternal" rule, but anything related to humans and other living beings including transcendent (who are the only entities that can experience hatred - inanimate rocks can't) are not permanent according to the Buddha. But okay, leaving that aside, two questions arise: 1. Why is hatred something that one should strive to cease? Clearly it involves important psychological functions, and had an evolutionary benefit. 2. How can hatred cease by love? If I love someone from another group, and that group hates me and wants me dead including any particular person from what group, they will be stronger and more motivated to destroy me, and so there will actually be less love. Moreover, there are many cases in history where two tribes hated each other, and one exterminated the other one, and the result was no more hatred. So hatred ended up ceasing through hatred. If someone could help me on these two points, I'd appreciate it.

As someone in his 30s, I wish to find a partner to grow old with. At the same time, it’s quite stressful that nowadays my family and friends are constantly pushing me to find someone quickly as I am getting older. I never had a relationship and never felt this pressure, but I don’t understand what I am missing here to feel this restless. 1. I can’t function in daily life if I’m constantly thinking about “How will I get this girl to date me?” 2. If I rush into a relationship, I might end up with someone not compatible which will cause more suffering. I tried reading about it from a Buddhist perspective. But everything I found mostly describe how to sustain romantic relationships. I would really appreciate if someone could help.

My spiritual bonding and connection are very strong with my lovely mother who has passed away. We both have tremendous love for each other. 1. Can we be reunited again in the next life? Can she be born as my daughter/son & Can I be born as her son/daughter again? 2. After my death and before the new birth, can I get to meet and talk with my mom (as the Tibetan book of the dead and many NDEs suggest you can meet the loved one after death)

If I were to get a rebirth as a Deva, is it possible for me to interact with humans or my loved ones again? Would it be possible for me to help guide humans or is that forbidden?

Regarding reincarnation, I have a few questions: 1. Unfortunately, because of a big mistake and peoples' interference, I lost the love of my life to another woman almost 30 years ago, but still love him deeply. He's moved on. But I am stuck and can't stop thinking about him every single day of my life. Can I be finally united with him in my next life? 2. Will my parents be the same in my next life? 3. I don't like to study too much in this life. Can I be what I dream of being in my next life? I would love to be a doctor, to be part of *Médecins sans frontièrs* and cure people for free, but in this life I didn't succeed in doing so, as my IQ was not perfect in many fields of study. I appreciate your answer. -Farah

I have been following Buddhism and mindfulness for a while now. I have a 5 year old son and want to teach him to be sympathetic/empathetic and grateful but im struggle to reconcile some of the Buddhist ideals. In my understanding, Buddhism teaches that we should be thankful for exactly the things we have (not to desire more/less) but to trust in the unfolding of our life. This is easy to say since I was lucky enough to be born into a productive family and am living a mostly positive life, etc. But when I look at the less fortunate people, homeless, poor, addicted, etc., I struggle. To tell them to just trust the unfolding of their life or to see the silver lining in what they have seems insensitive or even wrong. Ive also taught my son to feel lucky that he is fortunate to have things like a home, toys, opportunity, etc., and usually compare his life to those who are less fortunate in order to make the point that he is lucky and that he should be sensitive to other's misfortune. I don't want to teach him that we are any better than they are, but I want him to understand the difference between his luck and others. Although I am not religious (deity), I find myself wanting to pray for those people as I feel like i was simply lucky to be born into a family with opportunity, money, education, etc., whereas they were not. I guess I am a determinist for a lack of a better word. I guess what im asking is what place does sympathy/empathy or even being grateful have in Buddhism when Buddhism teaches that you should accept life for what it is and not to desire more? I can see how that narrative would work for me because i have the things i want, but for people who aren't as fortunate, how do you reconcile that in theory? Even to be motivated to help others, comes down to wanting more for them but Buddhism teaches we shouldn't want more than what has been given to us... Im confused and having trouble reconciling my desire to be grateful, empathetic, help others, etc., when Buddhism says just sit still and accept life for what it is (rich, poor, good, evil, etc.).

How does one let go of something the other person involved won't acknowledge? I don't mean the niceties of the other person's behaviour, the ins and outs and whys. Merely, that the other person - I think - nihilistically won't finish up. So e.g. your lover leaves you without even leaving a note. Or your friend pretends not to know you, with no explanation. Or your family changes the locks and won't answer the door when you visit.

Is it true that sakadagami can have sex that is pure so between a wife and husband. how can one gain the attention of a wise man who intends to marry and upholds The Way of Noble Ones.

I'm new to the concept of Buddhism, and am failing to understand perhaps something very basic. I understand that one is not expected to hold anything close or dear as it is impermanent and could change at any moment so how does one love another person? How does one become close to another person. As I understand it, a relationship would just consist of two people who aren't _that_ close to one another. "Therefore hold nothing dear, for separation from the dear is painful" - this seems to suggest that you should build a wall around yourself and separate yourself from potentially wonderful feelings just because they could cause pain, and pain is bad. I think pain is a part of life; denying that pain, or ignoring it is not part of a healthy life. I think of this concept of Buddhism similar to "don't smell the flowers because you may prick yourself on a thorn" thus denying yourself of the delights found in the smell and also the growth / knowledge from the pain of the thorn prick. Both of which you can learn and grow from. Am I missing something here?

I really need to know what is the mean of true love according to Buddhism?

I have this misunderstanding about love and attachment as they relate to one another. It's hard to put in words, so I'll try with some examples first. My understanding is that love is something you give away without expecting anything in return. While love where you need or want something from the other person (like for example, expect that other person to make you happy, or you want to control the other person in some way, or try to change them to be more of how you would want them to be, etc) is actually attachment. One example of true love I can think of is love for your children. You love them unconditionally. You understand they are their own person, with their own dreams, aspiration, thoughts, etc, so whatever they do, good or bad, you support them, help them, etc. You don't try to change them, or influence them, or impose your ideas on them, or have them accomplish the things you couldn't (e.g. I couldn't go to med school, but my child will), etc. No matter what happens, you love them because they are your children, and you love them no matter what they do. Taking that further, even in the presence of death, I still can understand love (at least I think I do). Everyone dies. Your children might die. And even if you love them and will miss them if they are gone, or suffer after they are gone, that suffering doesn't linger. You continue to love your children even after they are gone (or at least the idea of them or the memory of them). But here is another example. You love your partner. You think you love them like in the example above. But then they cheat on you with some other person. If you loved your partner unconditionally, you would be OK with that... I think. If being with someone else makes them happy, you should be happy for them, right? But in most relationships, you expect from your partner that they don't cheat on you, or to behave in a certain way. When that expectation is broken, you suffer. Arguments start, resentment, maybe violence towards that person. Is this because of attachment to the person and not love? 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 ours to have? So I guess, my question is this: What is love and what is attachment in a relation with your partner? What happens to love and attachment when they cheat with someone else? (for most of the people I know, death is less painful than being cheated upon; suffering caused by death eventually heals, but being cheated upon lingers for much longer). Can you truly love someone with no attachment so that no matter what they do, you do not end up suffering?

What do you think of this article about romantic love? I am skeptical about his understanding of *upeksha*. As I understand it, romantic love does not really exist in Buddhism because the targeted love in Buddhism loves everything without discrimination (which directly contradicts romantic love where you love your beloved more than a chair, for example. You don't want to share him/her).

Here is my question: > How does a lay Buddhist respond to awkwardness and how does a monk > respond to awkwardness such as dropping something while ordaining or > falling on the floor?

According to Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh, "true love" has four elements: 1. Loving kindness: this produces a lot of joy and happiness. 2. Compassion: it makes us and the other people suffer less. 3. Joy: "If love does not generate joy, it is not [true] love." 4. Inclusiveness: "In true love there is no frontier between the one who loves and the one who is loved." I'd like to focus on "compassion" here. Don't people who are more compassionate suffer more because they experience the suffering of other people in some sense? So aren't the elements 2 and 3 as mentioned above contrary to each other? I think this question is related but not identical to another question asked before: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/18619/love-and-caring-is-suffering .

What is the difference between the two or are they the same?

There have been many questions about what love is, ranging from non-attachment and compassion. I am not looking for a clear definition of the opposite of love, i.e. what love isn't, but feel free to do so if you think it can help answer the question. Rather, I want to know if love can exist without suffering: in much the same way that happiness cannot exist without suffering. I don't mean to equate love with happiness but love does have an element of joy to it. So, to what extent is pain the opposite of love? Or, to what extent can pain be separated from love? Principle of non-duality answers this, but I want to hear other opinions.

I feel like a very cold and sensual person. Easily attracted to sensual pleasure but very cold and numb when it comes to bonding with other human beings. I want to change, and therefore I want to make a meditation plan in order to develop empathy, love and compassion for other human beings, and possibly extend it to all sentient beings in general. However, I'm not sure about how to make such a meditation plan. Based on your experience / knowledge, which meditation techniques are most effective to develop these emotions?

Namo Buddhaya. For my survival I work but I do not like the work. I am always thinking of escaping it. But if I escape from it then how will I eat ? It is my only source of income. My question is : Should I do what I don't want to do especially if it is required for survival ? Should I start clinging to my work ? Or Should I start loving my work? If I should start loving my work then will it not automatically create clinging to the work ? In other words will I not miss the work when the work is gone ?