The discussion on communication gave me the impulse to reflect a little on the concept of romantic love between two people. What is this love? Let’s explore.
When we tell someone “I love you”, we are in fact stating that we feel the chemistry between us, which is mutually based on acceptance and admiration. We are also saying that we are lowering our defenses to a great extent, allowing the other person to even hurt us. We mean that our sexuality is focused on and channeled to that other person. At the same time, the tendency to protect and take care of him/her, which is similar to what parents feel for their children, emerges. People also refer to an unexplainable connection with that person at a deep/soul level.
I think that the package is, more or less, this. Let us now explore its components.
a. The (big) issue of chemistry. The chemistry between two people can lead (according to some) or is the result of (according to others) an unexplainable and deep soul connection. That the chemistry leads to the connection is, I think, the natural procedure. That the chemistry is the result of soul connection is, in my view, nothing more than internal projection: we convince ourselves that this is so and that what is happening to us is “destiny” – thus, inevitable.
Darwinists maintain that the chemistry felt when two people meet is nothing but the mutual recognition that the combination of their genes will underpin evolution. Some esotericists talk about karma and the law of reciprocity, others – more serious in my opinion – attribute the fact to an omni-present intelligence which recognises that these two people can “learn” from each other.
That the purpose of such a relationship is to “learn” marks the point from which we are allowed to see that the concept of love is nothing more than a purely internal process that starts from and returns to the “I” – what is handed over to the “you” suddenly becomes secondary.
(to be continued…)
10 comments:
"That the chemistry is the result of soul connection is, in my view, nothing more than internal projection: we convince ourselves that this is so and that what is happening to us is “destiny” – thus, inevitable."
Destiny is not a meaningless word. Knowledge of destiny means knowledge of the future as well as of the past. If the relationship plays out exactly as the destiny "foretold" (in the absence of a better word), it is/was, simply, destiny. Destiny can foretell different things, not only success.
We have our conditioning and limitations. The exact nature and shape of the conditioning is the nature and shape of our destiny. If we could shine love through us without any obstacle, destiny would be free and would need no foretelling. But we have obstacles.
There is a good reason to the foretelling, the same way as there is a good reason why we never know all our future with certainty. Since there is a limit to our survival skills and level of tolerance, we surely need the ability to foresee some things. Anything foreseen can be overcome, because we can prepare ourselves. On the other hand, if we knew everything, nothing would be a lesson.
Knowledge of destiny can effectively be used to diminish and even destroy our conditioning. As someone put it somewhere: "In that very friction between the clarity of not moving and all the pressure to go, charcoal turns into a diamond. If we leave when the pressure shows up, the charcoal remains charcoal."
I can argue that Tathagata told this in a whole different context - not in respect to destiny but to self-resolution. Of course, as you say, self-resolution shapes destiny but it is neither the only shaper there is nor the most important: there is always an X factor, the unknown factor that can pull the rag from underneath our feet any time.
To my understanding, therefore, destiny is no more transparent than a black box. I can't see inside it, I might think I can, but life proves my thinking false. And when people use this word, most of the times it is because they want to shake off responsibility for their actions.
Some other times they use it for manipulation purposes. Do you know how many men have come on to me wondering "how many lives have we shared in the past for me to feel so attracted to you in this one"? I have used the concept too in this very same context, I'm very ashamed to say. I didn't know any better then, though.
Anyway, where I am getting at with this post is that love is used not to bridge the distance between an I and a you but as a point of reference for the self. Again. It has little to do with the interaction between people. It has primarily to do with one's self, only most of the time we fail to see it. Which reminds me of what someone wrote somewhere: "I love you not for who you are, but for who I am when I am with you".
"Do you know how many men have come on to me wondering "how many lives have we shared in the past for me to feel so attracted to you in this one"?"
Well, tell me :)
Seriously, I have always been rather sceptical, so it has been very easy for me to brush off lies and liars. Why would anyone believe liars and manipulators is beyond me. As someone again said somewhere: "Don't take anything into your arms that you can't keep in your heart."
***
"I love you not for who you are, but for who I am when I am with you"
This is a good one. I have seen it earlier too :)
I agree with everything that you (seem to) mean. It's just that I felt the need to emphasise the usefulness of the concept of destiny, because it is useful from my perspective. I speak about it because it is not a black box for me. I simply describe what I see.
But I can emphasise something different too: No concept is truth in itself. They are all only bits in a system. Their place is relative to our perspective in the system.
The system is philosophy. The concepts are like lockers or drawers in it. The point is not in any single concept, but the concept has a place in the system. The point is any concept's relationship with other concepts. However, the ultimate point is not in any relationship and not in the whole philosophy either, because (the ultimate) philosophy looks different from different perspectives or points of view. The ultimate point is knowing your perspective or point of view, the reason why you have it, and what are the related consequences.
The above philosophy is called structuralism, which I largely adhere to. Considering this, I see no difference between the two contrasted parts of this statement: "Some esotericists talk about karma and the law of reciprocity, others – more serious in my opinion – attribute the fact to an omni-present intelligence which recognises that these two people can “learn” from each other." Is there any difference other than the concepts? Omni-present intelligence is where we come from and need to return to. Karma is just a concept to state this fact in one single word. Then learning: We only learn to obey laws of nature (such as karma, law of reciprocity, etc.) from each other, if there is no better source. Everything else is of little or no use.
***
"Anyway, where I am getting at with this post is that love is used not to bridge the distance between an I and a you but as a point of reference for the self. Again. It has little to do with the interaction between people."
Love or any other emotion has been a tough nut for my mind to crack, so let's see if I can rephrase it meaningfully.
We are not selves. We are only bits apart from the Self, as if drops from the Self. The drops reflect the Self, each one of us in our own way.
The attraction between any two drops in the belief that the ultimate purpose of the relationship is in one or the other is a mistake. It is also a mistake to think that the purpose is "each other", though this view may carry much further than the more blatant selfishness.
Real love carries everyone closer to the Self. There are people who can help with this in a small way, people who can help with this in a major way, and people who are on their way to totally somewhere else.
It's like clocks versus time. Clocks go each their own pace. Time goes its own pace independent of what clocks show or if there are any clocks at all. Only time is right; all clocks are wrong. To set a clock right you would need to study how time works in nature. But this is an overwhelming task in the beginning, so it is good to have some very precise clocks that you can use to correct your own. In this analogy, we are the clocks. Is this not so?
«Why would anyone believe liars and manipulators is beyond me»
It has to do with the innocence and the stupidity of the receiver. Take myself for example: my life has shown me that most of the time I exhibit both of these features…
“But I can emphasise something different too: No concept is truth in itself. They are all only bits in a system. Their place is relative to our perspective in the system.”
I couldn’t agree more. And if I argue your statements, my argument is limited to whether what you say works for me or not. It doesn’t have to do with approving or rejecting what you say. What you say is what you say. I totally respect that you are holding a (different) part of the truth, just like me, just like everyone.
"Some esotericists talk about karma and the law of reciprocity, others – more serious in my opinion – attribute the fact to an omni-present intelligence which recognises that these two people can “learn” from each other." Is there any difference other than the concepts?
There is, in the loads. The word karma is too heavily loaded and too misused. It recalls a whole package of concepts and connotes things I personally do not accept.
“We only learn to obey laws of nature (such as karma, law of reciprocity, etc.) from each other, if there is no better source. Everything else is of little or no use.”
You say that as if you’re sure there is a purpose or a reason for our lives. I’m not convinced that such a purpose or reason exists. It can be that the only “aim” there is, is having experiences. Maybe awareness just wants to explore, nothing more; then, our best role in it would be to be willing to have the experience – any experience.
“We are not selves. We are only bits apart from the Self, as if drops from the Self. The drops reflect the Self, each one of us in our own way.”
Oh yes, we are selves. That’s the whole point. We are born as individuals, have individual settings (cf. DNA sequence), individual formatting (brain) and everything is received and produced at an individual level. Our fingerprints are unique, our faces the same. Of course we are awareness at the same time, we are this vast intelligence that embraces everything, but testing this truth requires a radical redo of our in-built settings. Is education or the Western way of living to blame for the effort we have to put in? Perhaps.
The latest simile I came up with about the selves in relation to the Self is thoughts. Selves are like little voices or thoughts that flash inside the Self’s “brain” and disappear. Is the Self educated this way? Does It mature? Who knows?
“The attraction between any two drops in the belief that the ultimate purpose of the relationship is in one or the other is a mistake. It is also a mistake to think that the purpose is "each other", though this view may carry much further than the more blatant selfishness.”
In a party of two, education is interactive but it is always received and realised at the level of one’s self. Isn’t this true?
“Real love carries everyone closer to the Self.”
Love makes us lower our guards. Lowering the guards creates space and the essence can then flood in. In this manner, habits can give way to qualities and this is what true love does: it brings up more qualities in yourself and in your loved one.
“In this analogy, we are the clocks. Is this not so?”
Yes, I think it is.
When I said we are not selves, I was exaggerating of course. We are the small selves and then there is the Self. However, the Self is to be realised, while the small self stands in the way of this realisation. Denying the big Self is a problem, while denying the small self is the solution. This is how the small self ultimately does not exist. (Just a reasoning. I don't know anyone who is effectively living this way.)
"In a party of two, education is interactive but it is always received and realised at the level of one’s self. Isn’t this true?"
Yes, it's true. But it's also a fact that interaction works smoother when there are multiple mutual magnetic matches between those who interact. Thinking of one's own self is only a problem when you need to interact. It is an even bigger problem when you add the other's self in the mix. The best interaction occurs when you can concentrate on the topic at hand, not on what the other actually means or wants, or on what you would yourself rather be doing. Granted, it hardly ever works smooth, as we can see from our own discussions, but I remember moments :)
And yes, it's true that love makes us lower our guards. I'm sure that lowering our guards is at least half of the essence of love. I am gradually becoming desperate to lower my guards, but it's easier to do it when you know all the consequences. I'd like it if it led to innocence without ignorance, but mostly it only brings pain, because ignorance becomes quickly obvious.
“Just a reasoning. I don't know anyone who is effectively living this way.”
Neither do I, at least not in the circle of my personal acquaintances. I can only refer to Tathagata and the reason why his conversations with other people can become altogether incomprehensible at times. The reason is, I believe, that he is the living manifestation of what he is talking about, i.e. an insider (to refer to one of your own posts). I mean, he is [or seems to be] talking from the inside – not describing theoretical models like we do. The same should be the case with his companion, Julia. But I don’t know them personally and I wouldn’t bet on it.
“Granted, it hardly ever works smooth, as we can see from our own discussions, but I remember moments :)”
Me too :) But, you know, when I am writing whatever it is that I am writing, I don’t leave myself out of the picture. For example, when I was writing that the authors of posts are actually saying “adore me”, I meant myself too. This is a subtle point that often escapes people I am conversing with, but most probably because I don’t (or can’t) make it clear. I am always - and primarily - being self-sarcastic.
“I am gradually becoming desperate to lower my guards, but it's easier to do it when you know all the consequences.”
I’m sure that life has lots of imagination and I could never dream of knowing all the consequences. Giving up on the need to know is essentially to be left unguarded as to what the next moment might bring. I think it could even translate into being in love with life itself... : )
What is love? It is one of the most difficult questions for mankind. Centuries have passed by, relationships have bloomed and so has love. But no one can give the proper definition of love. To some Love is friendship set on fire, for others maybe love is like luck. You have to go all the way to find it. No matter how you define it or feel it, love is the eternal truth in the history of mankind.
Love is patient, love is kind. It has no envy, nor it boasts itself and it is never proud. It rejoices over the evil and is the truth seeker. Love protects; preserves and hopes for the positive aspect of life. Always stand steadfast in love, not fall into it. It is like the dream of your matter of affection coming true. Love can occur between two or more individuals. It bonds them and connects them in a unified link of trust, intimacy and interdependence. It enhances the relationship and comforts the soul. Love should be experienced and not just felt. The depth of love can not be measured. Look at the relationship between a mother and a child. The mother loves the child unconditionally and it can not be measured at all. A different dimension can be attained between any relationships with the magic of love. Love can be created. You just need to focus on the goodness of the other person. If this can be done easily, then you can also love easily. And remember we all have some positive aspect in us, no matter how bad our deeds may be.
I'll relate to your insightful post, James, as soon as I'm done with something urgent at work. :)
Let’s see now then. I think that you are describing results, James, i.e. what love brings, rather than what love is. For me, the key is in the word “unconditionally” that you use. Romantic love in the Western world is a paradox: we all expect it to be unconditional, when it is in fact bound to plenty conditions from the very start. First and foremost, there is the issue of monogamy, which probably runs counter to the human being’s design. Then there is an abundance of cultural, financial, fashion etc. restrictions. All this because we give the word “unconditionally” the wrong meaning. “Unconditionally” should mean “not wanting to change the other” or “love them as they are”. This is why a parent’s (especially a mother’s) love for her child is unconditional: because there are little things she wants to change in her children; by contrast, she admires them for who they are. Is there a way to apply this to romantic relationships? Because this is the essence of love.
"This is why a parent’s (especially a mother’s) love for her child is unconditional: because there are little things she wants to change in her children; by contrast, she admires them for who they are."
Actually, as with anything and everything, the parent-child relationship is also a composite. It is both conditional and unconditional.
In the process of growing/raising, we guide the child and accommodate ourselves to the child's age and other variables in order to guide adequately. This is entirely conditioned.
On the other hand, at each and every step, we always aim to think and act in the best interests of our children. This is unconditional :)
Post a Comment