fear

It has long been established that the transformation from the vulnerable and fragile states of childhood to the relative independence and self-navigating states of adult life is profoundly influenced by the early relationships we experienced with our core caretakers. The nature of these influential experiences—whether or not we felt securely connected to and emotionally tolerated by our parents—establishes a set of unconscious 'internal working models,’ or road maps, to the world (note the work of Bowlby, Ainsworth, Masterson, Kohut, Shore, Fonagy, etc). These internal maps guide our behavior in relationship to others—friends, romantic partners, etc—and establish our expectations of what others can provide. These models are what motivate our wise and startlingly self-sabotaging choices for romantic partners. The sturdiness of our early relationships in essence affects all our important, subsequent relationships, even our deepest views of human nature, to positive or negative degrees. Let's investigate early relationships in action:

• A child who experiences a satisfying relationship with its caretakers may express some distress during an initial separation from it parent(s) in a preschool setting, where it is placed in a room with many other infants, but the child will subsequently rally and interact with other children, knowing it is being monitored by a caretaker with whom it can return to and reunite if other children prove alarming.

• The child of a threatening parent, however, lives in a persistent state of agitation and fear, for given the vulnerability of infancy it remains dependent on its inadequate caretaker. A disorganized, confused state of affairs results, for the child's security providing figure produces both abuse and comfort at turns. When placed in unfamiliar environments—perhaps a preschool setting—the disorganized child doesn't explore the world of other children; it yearns for protection yet fears returning to its parent; a state known as 'freezing' or dissociation results; the child may lose all awareness of its environment and seek a sense of security via internal fantasies. This pattern of dissociative freezing will be repeated throughout life unless a great deal of therapeutic healing ensues.

• The child of narcissistic, self-involved parents will view other children with suspicion; as its has been deprived of a satisfying relationship with its caretakers, so the child dismisses others of being of interest. Such a child will often seek out available toys to play with; other children are not considered worth investigating. In adult life this child may seek out many sexual partners but run from any demands for intimacy and self-disclosure.

• The child of demanding parents who offer attention only as a reward for 'proper behavior' will remain preoccupied with its caretakers rather than integrate with other children; this child doesn't consider itself to be secure or protected unless it constantly monitors its parent for signs of approval; the child constantly performs for the attention of its mother or father and a 'false self' develops; over time such children grow to doubt that their authentic, spontaneous seves are worthy of much compassion or love.

While the above situations describe early life encounters, essentially similar behaviors persist throughout their lives. Simply observing the relationship between caretaker and child, attachment theorists can predict with uncanny accuracy the child's prospects for long term relationships in adult life. The development of the brain itself is profoundly influenced by early attachment schemes—note the work of Allan Schore of the clinical faculty of the Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, UCLA. After secure attachment, the orbital frontal region of the right hemisphere is wired to regulate our emotions, rather than react quickly to any perceived threat.

                                                          ~

Given the importance of human connection, how do we integrate these important insights with the core Buddhist dharma, which informs us that suffering derives from attachment to transient conditions, which includes people? To a surface reading, attachment theory and the dharma appear to be at odds. Such a misreading can lead to needless confusion in helping us develop a spiritual view of relationships; we may needlessly conclude that seeking intimate relationships is not worthwhile, as all human connections are unreliable and deeply impermanent.

To clear up the misunderstanding surrounding attachment, its worth noting that in contemporary psychology attachment is a positive goal, as it refers to the necessarily secure and satisfying relationship between parent and child; in the dharma, attachment is entirely negative state of affairs, one in which clutch and fasten onto other people, pleasures, views or routines, seeking lasting unconditional pleasure. Attachment in psychology allows for the child to separate and investigate the world before an eventual return, in the dharma, attachment implies a interpersonal connection wherein no separation can easily occur; insecurity and relentless demands rule the relationship. In psychology, attachment is love; in the dharma, attachment is based on clinging.

Given the above we can see how easy it is to misunderstand the implications of 'non-attachment' in spirituality. Buddhist practice is in no way against core, intimate relationships; the Buddha taught that the community provided the practitioner with the foundation of all spiritual practice. The Buddha constantly insisted on unconditional kindness and compassion, and while this directive was not predicated on sensual pleasure, is was certainly a relational teaching. It is worth noting that the Buddha devoted the greatest portion of his teachings to the Vinaya, the monastic rules that guide the behavior of renunciates, with the goal of insuring enduring satisfying relationships amidst devoted practitioners.

Finally, the above leads us to conclude that a spiritual approach to relationships is one where we express love by providing all that secure attachment implies: a caring attention that is reliably available; direction and instruction offered only when requested or absolutely necessary to prevent harm; setting goals by our wise examples rather than asking others to walk what we can merely talk; avoiding a desire to control via reward or punishment; and, most of all, appreciation of the other's happiness and compassion for their suffering. These are the foundations of attachment that is healthy rather than merely interactions that lead to needless clinging and suffering.