Dependance on 'touch'?

Casual conversation between friends. Anything goes (almost).
Post Reply
Flipflop
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2021 12:42 am

Dependance on 'touch'?

Post by Flipflop »

Hi!

I was reading the book red thread zen by susan murphy and the following passage caught my eye.

'Hands received you, cradled, touched, and soothed you, they were entirely necessary and enough at that moment. Hands can harm as well as ignite trust and love, but consider especially the times you have been touched by hands that see you, truly see you, or those moments when you have touched another with hands that really see them. We need that kind of touch to live. When you touch with hands that truly see the other, that is Guanyin—and will be hands that clearly see the other as not other to yourself.'

It appears she is talking about touch in the literal and metaphorical sense. I am not trying to debate the value of 'touch' and perhaps this is all in relation to infants but that is not clear to me from what is being written. I am questioning the implied necessity and possible emotional or physical dependance that can arise from it.

How would would one reconcile or interpret this statement from a traditional or ‘strict’ buddhist perspective? Correct or no?
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 4604
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Dependance on 'touch'?

Post by Aemilius »

If you look at a central and important Buddhist teaching of 12 links of Dependent origination or Pratitya samutpada, the sixth link is sparsa, usually translated as contact, and it means touching or contacting the objects of the five or six senses.

From the point of view of the Mahayana, there is no Nirvana that would be separate from Samsara, touch or contact is always present in life.

The five omnipresent or always present mental factors (sarvatraga) are:
Sparśa - contact, contacting awareness, sense impression, touch.
Vedanā - feeling, sensation.
Saṃjñā - perception.
Cetanā - volition, intention.
Manasikāra - attention.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
User avatar
Budai
Posts: 878
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2020 1:12 pm
Location: ༀ ∞ Nam Myoho Renge Kyo ∞ ༀ

Re: Dependance on 'touch'?

Post by Budai »

My interpretation is that healthy and compassionate touch is okay. What are you touching right now? Even the material object in or on your hands needs to be handled with care. And by far, how we interact with other people is one of the most important things to be careful with in this Age, and something no one can ignore.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17090
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Dependance on 'touch'?

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

From a perspective of Western science this is definitely true, in terms of normal human development.

Anyway, if attachment is what you are concerned with, that’s a little misguided maybe.

Lots of things in mundane existence we develop attachment to. Are you gonna stop eating?

If you practice a renunciate form of Buddhism, this is maybe a little different.

If you don’t you should simply recognize that attachment is part and parcel of our relative existence and not develop an aversion to the notion that young humans need interaction from others, including touch.

On another level, I have had teachings from a Nyingma teacher who said that the attachment between mother and child (for instance) can be a kind of seed of mahakaruna. So great compassion can be uncovered through attachment.

As to touch itself, of course it is one way that concern or compassion can manifest.

A personal anecdote, i remember a time during my teenage years where I was in a really bad place. Nearly suicidal. My Dad came up and just put his hand on my shoulder, that was it. For whatever reason that one act really made a difference. It wasn't just that of course, but in that moment a simple touch had this enormous impact. I've found the same is true with my own children, don't underestimate it, we communicate through senses as well as language.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
Flipflop
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2021 12:42 am

Re: Dependance on 'touch'?

Post by Flipflop »

Johnny Dangerous wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:19 am From a perspective of Western science this is definitely true, in terms of normal human development.

Anyway, if attachment is what you are concerned with, that’s a little misguided maybe.

Lots of things in mundane existence we develop attachment to. Are you gonna stop eating?

If you practice a renunciate form of Buddhism, this is maybe a little different.

If you don’t you should simply recognize that attachment is part and parcel of our relative existence and not develop an aversion to the notion that young humans need interaction from others, including touch.

As to touch itself, of course it is one way that concern or compassion can manifest.

Appreciate the answer!

Just to reiterate I am not trying to discuss the value of touch in human development of young (infant) humans or as a way to express compassion. Concerning the interpretation of the particular passage however I think the conclusion is that she was indeed most likely referring to this process.

Regarding the adult human practicing the (renunciate) path which you already mentioned briefly i am assuming you would agree that touch by another human being, whether just the physical sensation or as an expression of compassion is not a necessary requirement for realization?
Last edited by Flipflop on Mon Mar 29, 2021 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ayu
Global Moderator
Posts: 13255
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Location: Europe

Re: Dependance on 'touch'?

Post by Ayu »

I think, 'touch' cannot be considered as a general phenomenon - not like e.g. Aspirin against headache. IMO it depends strongly on the situation, time & person.
Doctors, psychotherapists and monks & nuns are recommended to be strongly cautious about touching their clients.
E.g. victims of sexual abuse are able to freak out about a simple touch on the shoulder. As well a friendly kidding touch towards a woman by a monk can be quite irritating.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9439
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Dependance on 'touch'?

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Flipflop wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 7:16 amHow would would one reconcile or interpret this statement from a traditional or ‘strict’ buddhist perspective? Correct or no?
I would regard it as a lot of poetic fluff and move on to something else.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17090
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Dependance on 'touch'?

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

Flipflop wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 11:28 am
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:19 am From a perspective of Western science this is definitely true, in terms of normal human development.

Anyway, if attachment is what you are concerned with, that’s a little misguided maybe.

Lots of things in mundane existence we develop attachment to. Are you gonna stop eating?

If you practice a renunciate form of Buddhism, this is maybe a little different.

If you don’t you should simply recognize that attachment is part and parcel of our relative existence and not develop an aversion to the notion that young humans need interaction from others, including touch.

As to touch itself, of course it is one way that concern or compassion can manifest.

Appreciate the answer!

Just to reiterate I am not trying to discuss the value of touch in human development of young (infant) humans or as a way to express compassion. Concerning the interpretation of the particular passage however I think the conclusion is that she was indeed most likely referring to this process.

Regarding the adult human practicing the (renunciate) path which you already mentioned briefly i am assuming you would agree that touch by another human being, whether just the physical sensation or as an expression of compassion is not a necessary requirement for realization?
No, I wouldn't say it is, but I don't think that's particularly relevant to her statement.

Touch -is- required for the development of a human person though, and in that sense it is like many factors that are conducive to spiritual practice. Someone who has not gone through healthy development is at a likely disadvantage in terms of spiritual practice. Again though, I feel like the conversation goes way beyond this little quote.

The statement seems uncontroversial and as PVS says a little "fluffy", I don't really understand the objection to it.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
SilenceMonkey
Posts: 1448
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:54 am

Re: Dependance on 'touch'?

Post by SilenceMonkey »

It sounds to me along the lines of how HH Dalai Lama teaches Bodhicitta. That feeling of being held in our mother's arms, enveloped in her love... It's essential for nurturing that quality of love within our hearts. But through meditation practices, we can learn to find it within ourselves without the need of physical comfort. We may develop to the point where we can feel love for other people without anyone anywhere near us.

There's a danger of having a renunciant attitude that shuns physical touch. It can lead to serious emotional repression. It's often a big thing that monks and nuns have to come to terms with. So... how can we develop bodhicitta love without falling into too much attachment to physical comfort or aversion to it?

Actually, I think some loving attachment is good for us in nurturing a healthy ego. And later, maybe we can see the emptiness of it all, and still have the sense of love we've cultivated.
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Dependance on 'touch'?

Post by LastLegend »

Mahayana precepts are minimizing karma as much as possible but no means should be strict all the times because that would create issues also.
It’s eye blinking.
SilenceMonkey
Posts: 1448
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:54 am

Re: Dependance on 'touch'?

Post by SilenceMonkey »

About PVS's comment about these words being a bit fluffy... sometimes I feel this way too when hearing western buddhist teachers talk about loving kindness. I think as a culture we tend to mix feelings of sexuality and sensuality into our concept of love. From a buddhist perspective, it's important to be aware of this as it can lead to many flavors of attachment and desire.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~

That being said...

I think we can develop a healthy relationship with touch by getting a cat or a dog. Or visiting friends who have pets. You can play with them and it's just pure love.

There's none of the baggage we might have if it was a person. Cats and dogs are innocent and a pure source of happiness. And there's no rule against loving animals in the vinaya. :tongue:
User avatar
Ayu
Global Moderator
Posts: 13255
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Location: Europe

Re: Dependance on 'touch'?

Post by Ayu »

Or hugging trees. They do not feel offended.
penalvad_uba
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2021 8:32 am

Re: Dependance on 'touch'?

Post by penalvad_uba »

Johnny Dangerous wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:19 am ...
Anyway, if attachment is what you are concerned with, that’s a little misguided maybe.
...


If you don’t you should simply recognize that attachment is part and parcel of our relative existence and not develop an aversion to the notion that young humans need interaction from others, including touch.

...
As to touch itself, of course it is one way that concern or compassion can manifest.

A personal anecdote, i remember a time during my teenage years where I was in a really bad place. Nearly suicidal. My Dad came up and just put his hand on my shoulder, that was it. For whatever reason that one act really made a difference. It wasn't just that of course, but in that moment a simple touch had this enormous impact. I've found the same is true with my own children, don't underestimate it, we communicate through senses as well as language.
Great answer.

My personal experience is that the one whos asking the qquestion is fearing his own lust, probably linked to some karma in the sense of lacking.

But as you develope your meditations, you own touch will be kind towards your body. Remember that Hand Mudras arent just silly simbilization, but your human hands holds a great deal of your power through a lot of points in the subtle body.
Just massage your hands every morning after wake up, be sure that they are very confortable and pleased relaxed.
As long as you meditate the cure power will flow in your body and, extra ordinarely in your touch and hands.
Post Reply

Return to “Lounge”