It had some good information. Not sure I believe there isn’t some form of attachment with love but what she said about clinging vs holding gently resonated with me.
I learned this concept a long time ago from my therapist using sand as an analogy.
“Relationships - of all kinds - are like sand held in your hand. Held loosely, with an open hand, the sand remains where it is.The minute you close your hand and squeeze tightly to hold on, the sand trickles through your fingers. You may hold onto it, but most will be spilled. A relationship is like that. Held loosely, with respect and freedom for the other person, it is likely to remain intact. But hold too tightly, too possessively, and the relationship slips away and is lost.”
A lot of times when a relationship is in crisis our reaction is to grasp tighter, becoming more clingy and needy. However, that often gets us the opposite of what we desire. This behavior is more likely to push one away rather than bringing them closer.
I also like what she says about being fulfilled within ourselves and appreciating that in the other. Not expecting the other to supply that sense of well-being. Again I’m not sure how much of that is realistic. I think we all have some dependence on our spouses and their actions do affect our well-being to a certain extent. What they do still matters. Ideally, if both spouses are loving the other genuinely, caring about their happiness, then this will work out beautifully.
If marriage wasn’t expected to increase happiness, I suspect fewer would marry. So while “being fulfilled within ourselves” is all well and good, we aren’t meant to be totally independent islands with periodic dispassionate transactions. Our spouse will impact our life in some manner to which it would be nigh-impossible to respond to neutrally. The idea that our happiness should only be affected in a neutral to positive manner through sheer force of will, regardless what our spouse does, is a denial of the inherent responsibility as a party in the relationship.
So while I suppose I would agree that we’re not responsible for our spouse’s happiness, I would say that we are responsible for being a positive impact on their life. If we aren’t bringing them more happiness than what they would have had if they had remained single, then we’re doing a poor job as a spouse. (Note that this is under normal circumstances... if a spouse responds negatively to an objectively positive influence, due to mental illness or other complication, we can’t be responsible for that.)
It's only a 3.5 minute video, so I'm sure there is a lot more she could say. I see echos of Dr. Schnarch's idea of "differentiation" in what he says -- where you learn to be emotionally self-sufficient and not dependent on your "reflected sense of self" from your spouse for emotional equilibrium.
I am also reminded of things that Dr. Harley talks about. How, if you don't get something out of your marriage -- if some of your own needs are not being met -- at some point you build up a lot of resentment about doing all the giving and eventually it turns out bad. Early in the video, Tenzin Palmo distinguishes between attachment and genuine love in terms of happiness. Attachment, she says, wants the spouse to make me happy, genuine love wants the spouse to be happy whether or not that makes me happy. Dr. Harley, I think, would say that this position is untenable in a long term marriage.
In my opinion, I think a long term marriage relationship is going to need a balance of the two sides. If I do all the giving and none of the getting, I will not be able to sustain the relationship indefinitely. If I do all of the getting and none of the giving, the relationship will end when my spouse has been wrung dry. In order for a marriage to endure, both spouses must give and get happiness from the relationship.