Tuesday, June 11, 2013

0 The path of love - gimmick or unconditional?


 

What is the path of love?


How does it relate to mainstream love?

 

 

Is it an outer or an inner quality?




I am all compassion and light. I see love in every person. I do not need negativity in my life. Peace is in my heart. I distance myself from confrontations.

This might be a statement made by someone claiming to be on the path of love. To yearn for peace, to be in love, are not these taming ideas? But then, did not every being that ever existed yearn for peace? Even the greatest war criminals and serial killers could have easily made such a claim. Were these also on the path of love?

There is a lot of confusion surrounding “love”, and many use it as a gimmick, as a scam, or as a propaganda. So what is it?

Most people (but not all) are familiar with mainstream “love” or “conditional love”, where one “loves” another being (including an object) out of a need, out of a dependency, or out of a mundane desire.

The path of love is not concerned with “conditional love”. It rather tries, in a futile attempt, to point towards “unconditional love”. “Unconditional love” is to embrace and allow it all. It is to love a tree, to love the guy who is cutting down the tree, and to love oneself while protesting and screaming “stop it idiot”.

Unconditional love and being


How does “unconditional love” differs from “conditional love” or mainstream love? “Unconditional love” is embracing all, including its own negation. It is to see love in every being and at the same time to see their division and separation, and still embrace all including the self. It is beyond love and beyond hatred. It is beyond logic. 

“Unconditional love” is a very complicated way of simply saying “to be”. “To be” is a very complicated way of remaining silent, of saying nothing.

Unconditional love and logic


“Unconditional love”, or “to be”, is not suitable for analysis and dissection with logic. Logic is too linear and limited. “Unconditional love” is vast and illogical. When one asks should I or should I not, one is thinking with linear logic. “Unconditional love” is to rejoice for both opposite poles of a contradiction.

In “conditional love” one binds the heart to an idea, to a part, to a person, to a pattern, or to the mind. This creates a situation where persons, patterns, ideas, groups, parts, would use the word “love” to exclude others, the rest of the whole. This is why it is called “conditional”. It is very logical and patterned. It answers to a “condition”, while masking the rest of existence.

“Unconditional love” is not the opposite of “conditional love”. If it was so, it would have simply been the other end of the same axis. “Unconditional love” embraces “conditional love” and goes far way beyond it. It does not rule out or condemn
“conditional love” - as otherwise it would have been “conditional” itself. It allows
“conditional love” as much as it allows every other aspect of existence. This is why it is called “unconditional”. This is why it has nothing to do with logic.

If one tries to grasp “unconditional love” with the mind it will not make any sense at all. It will be utter rubbish. This is why many who try to understand “spirituality” find it to be complete nonsense. “Unconditional love”, like “spirituality”, is to be experienced, not to be pondered upon.

Unconditional love and happiness


Picking and doing the things that make you feel good, is that “unconditional love”? “Unconditional love” for sure does not mean to choose to do things that make you feel bad. Choosing what makes one feel good is beautiful and is embraced by “unconditional love”, but it is not “unconditional love”. “Unconditional love” is to let go and ride the wild waves as they come.

In existence there is no good and no bad. Yet we beings have perceptions of the mind. “Unconditional love” embraces all perceptions and points of view of the mind. That is needed to be able to embrace the whole existence, because the world as we see it, is nothing put a projection of our mind.

“Unconditional love” does not mean being a robot. It is not being with no emotions. It is rather embracing all the emotions. If attachment is clinging to one thing, perhaps one feeling; detachment is being isolated on an island avoiding all things and feelings - an attachment to insularity; then “unconditional love” is non-attachment, or embracing. It allows and accepts all - it does not negate anything, not even negation itself.

Limiting oneself to a point of view, because that is how one feels better, is a very conditional act. How can that be “unconditional love”?

Unconditional love and confrontation


Can avoiding confrontations be “unconditional love”? Avoiding confrontations is excluding parts of the whole according to our liking. Why is that needed? Were not we given the tools to manage and handle a confrontation? This, of course, does not mean that one should seek confrontations - after all, there are many who like to take words to the extreme. In the case of avoiding confrontations, “unconditional love” and “peace” would be nice words for surrendering. Does that involve any love to the self? How can love be unconditional when one gives up on oneself, when one does not love oneself?

When gurus say to surrender, they do not mean to surrender to an idea, to a pattern, or to a person that is trying to spread such an idea or pattern. It is rather surrendering to existence, to the whole, that includes one's own self.

Confrontation is a bond, is a relation, as much as (conditional) love is. They both exist on the same axis. Call upon one and the other comes along, as when you call upon light, darkness comes lurking in its shadow. It is not possible to separate these two.

Closing the eyes and determining or even deciding for existence that it needs to be in a state of peace, when it is in a state of conflict, is perhaps as much aggressive as the conflict itself. One is forcefully imposing one's own point of view on the world, because that is what makes one feel better - not to be in a conflict. Why is it needed? Is it any difference than ruining forests, bringing down trees, and polluting nature? Do not both involve forcing our point of view and what makes us feel better on the world? Is that peace? Is that an act of love?

Did not the conflict start in the first place because someone wanted to feel better? How different is that from imposing one's own point of view on the world?

Unconditional love and perfection


“Unconditional love” is perfection. A perfect person is someone who accepts one's imperfection, embraces it, and loves all aspects and natures of the self unconditionally. When one looks down on parts of the self, one gets split, one gets divided into pieces. Such individual would never know peace, would never know love, because there is an endless conflict going on in the inside.

Many advocate for perfection by preferring one quality of the self over others. This, however, results in a state of inner conflict and division. Why would anyone advocate for such a thing? This is rather simple - it is much easier to control and manipulate someone who is divided, someone in inner conflict, someone who is suffering, while the ego is convinced and thinking that one is superior and perfect.

Epilogue


“Unconditional love” is a fragrance of the inner - not of the outer. In “unconditional love” there is no division, there is no conflict - not because the outer is void of them, but rather because the inner is in unity.

The path of love is to expand one's “conditional love” slowly slowly till it includes all, till it does not exclude anything, even exclusion itself is to be embraced.
0 Comments
Comments
G+ Comments

No comments:

Post a Comment