What is this thing called love?
- Thread starter onemoment
- Start date
What is this thing called love?
Is it romantic notions of belonging?
Or is it belonging?
Is there a difference between the notion and the being in belonging?
Can’t love only be there when we are there, with senses wide open?
And can there be, there, true love without there being thought of love?
Surely yes!
Love does not need thought there to exist, it is there without thought,
And then thoughts arise on that.
Belonging – love – is what love is, and it cannot be romantic,
That belonging we feel when we feel love, that is what is always there.
And it is romantic notions, thoughts, about love or work or a me, that take us away from our true love.
Is it romantic notions of belonging?
Or is it belonging?
Is there a difference between the notion and the being in belonging?
Can’t love only be there when we are there, with senses wide open?
And can there be, there, true love without there being thought of love?
Surely yes!
Love does not need thought there to exist, it is there without thought,
And then thoughts arise on that.
Belonging – love – is what love is, and it cannot be romantic,
That belonging we feel when we feel love, that is what is always there.
And it is romantic notions, thoughts, about love or work or a me, that take us away from our true love.
That feeling of the notion of ‘being in love with someone and that someone being in love with you’, have you ever thought if that could exist without the thought?
If it is dependent on the thought, the thought or much thinking would have to precede that feeling of love – but regardless, for that is not the issue – the issue is that notion of romantic love can never be love. It gives us a feeling that we are one with each other. But if it were true that we were one, why is it that this feeling of oneness becomes conditional and disappears. There can be no truth of what love is if it is conditional but there is no denying some feeling of what we would call ‘love’, be it what it may.
So I suggest that this love is one we come to be in touch with when we have a sense of belonging, our bodies are responsive and open, not much water under the bridge and lots of unchallenged notions of who this person may be. So, we are open and we feel this thing called love. We no longer feel separate and the mind tells a story of this feeling of openness – ‘I am not separate and alone, I am one with this feeling of love, and this feeling of love comes from this person’. Wrong!
That feeling of love is always there, we feel it every time we feel a part of the whole, are in the moment of life, with no internal chatter, just functional thought.
That sense of belonging is, as you say Dragon, ‘… assimilation in a way’ and has nothing to do with separation or it allowing ‘us to be part of a greater one by joining with the other’, it can exist in unrequited love. Though I am not sure exactly where you stand with it all because there appears to be some contradiction in your argument. Correct me if I am wrong.
Doesn't it?
"Love" is a chemical imbalance.
How much thought do you put into the chemicals in your brain/ body?
And what is this body or chemical but a name we give to something and therefore think we truly understand. May as well call it love or any other thing. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
It is only thought you can put into anything. But that feeling of love, it is undeniable and it does not require any story of chemical or mutual love to exist. It is a sense of belonging to the whole without any story about it. It is the one communing with itself. How's that? So I said it. Tell me what you think.
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
naah its a religious word which have been trying to replace sex.
Killian_1_4
Registered Senior Member
A) that's TWO words
B) since it's not the norm, and also temporary why would think it's a balance?
I suspect that speculating on love is like penguins speculating on nuclear physic. Don't worry about it.
Ah, the ‘love’ of god story! Pretty fucked up story really. All these uptight religious types not free enough to let rip in bed - ‘Sex is the demon’s work’. Sex is seen as taking us away from our love of god, in pursuit of pleasure. From their perspective, where love of god is love of something outside of themselves, hierarchical and conditional (for example, sex and god do not mix) they’re pretty right really, because let’s face it, sex can be pretty damned good and anything as pleasurable as that is certainly going to entice me more than Sunday mass, so it has got to come from the ‘devil hisself’. Halleluiah that he gave us such, I say.
Sex can be like love I guess, because, in those moments of spontaneity, there is no judgement and certainly an absence of thought relating to ‘where do I belong in this world’. In fact, I would hazard to say, that there is no story of a separate me playing during sex at all, not in those moments of absolute freedom.
All interpretations of holy scriptures put sex in the picture, but in essence, all of the scriptures do say something of being one with god and that human desires stand in the way of that. But what is a desire?
Doesn’t all desire take us away from belonging in every moment, away from belonging now and to belonging when desire is fulfilled. That cannot be love, for that too is transitory, and logically I am here so I have got to belong. That, being here, that is your right to belong, no attitude required. Drop the attitude, the resentment, the thought, and you are there, so you belong. You are love, no ‘it sucks’ or
about it.
So emphatic you so obviously are that it is bullshit, Challenger!!!!!
To what feeling of love are you eluding? To that story in the movies that ends in eternal happiness ‘together’ or in community? Or to that feeling of bitterness when love doesn’t last, when you believe that you were obviously deluded to think you were in love ‘with that bitch or bastard’? Is that what love really is?
When you felt that love in the moment of ‘delusion’, was it really bullshit or did you feel it to the core of your body?
See, that love we feel is pretty special.
But if only it would last, then we would know that it was real.
The reality of it is that it belongs to us – to the ‘me’ if you want to get personal. We feel one with the other and that connectedness or belonging, one with the other, does not just stop there, it extends out to the everything and everyone, to ourselves - we can all guess when a person is in love. But then it stops.
So we say to ourselves, it could only have ever been ‘bullshit’. The ‘love’ in the commonly told story of ‘love’, is bullshit, as you so aptly and emphatically put it. Who in their right mind will not agree with you that that ‘love’ is bullshit except for the deluded and naive?
That ‘love’, that story about what love is, that’s the bullshit though. Be as cynical as you like about it, that feeling you had, when you thought you were in love or were naïve enough to trust that it was real, when you were a kid and excited about life perhaps, that was amazing, yes?
But in the story, what’s not amazing is that it appears to be transitory, changing. And it’s not fair that it doesn’t last, so you can’t trust it, for that sense of belonging and not caring if you belong or not, because it is a forgone conclusion, can only be real if it lasts.
But I am here to tell you that it does last, that it is there always if we would only trust that it is there always and dare to feel into it despite the hurt we have felt about ‘love’ in the past.
It is because we think it is related to a story that we do not see that it is always there. We tell a story about it all being bullshit, and it stops us from seeing that what we want is already the basis of all life. We felt that when we were kids whether we remember or not, and if we just drop the stories we tell about ourselves, life is truly wonderful.