Love?

[Walker]

With that attitude, over time one will risk becoming a doormat, and taken for granted.

What do you mean by that, what attitude?

Please explain what you mean, and if you do not know how to explain what you mean, then I suggest you stop replying to my comments.

Didn't mean to overlook your response.

To answer your question, I mean the attitude of asking nothing from a loved one will eventually, over time, cause one to be taken for granted by that loved one, and that affects the behavior of the loved one towards you, because you asked for nothing.

The song made famous by Buffy St. Marie back in the day is a furthermore ... that if you set out with the intention of loving everyone, you will be left with no one. This means that loving everyone is not a matter of intention, but rather an uncalculated and thus spontaneous expression of the heart. When loving everyone that way, when you are eventually left with no one, as we all will be when we shed the mortal coil if not sooner, it really will not matter that you will be left with none. It is unavoidable. The only variable to this inevitability is for how long one will be the left with none, and if one who loves all is actually left with none, or is perpetually with God.

On the other hand, those who are remembered when all others are gone are those who loved us unselfishly. Parents and grandparents, perhaps others, who loved us into being.

[Dontaskme]

To answer your question, I mean the attitude of asking nothing from a loved one will eventually, over time, cause one to be taken for granted by that loved one, and that affects the behavior of the loved one towards you, because you asked for nothing.

If someone I love takes me for granted just because I ask nothing from them, then that is not love. Personally, to love someone,to me, means not taking people I love for granted, and not to ask anything from them in return for my love to them, like for instance, I can love someone, but then wouldn't dream of asking them for their love in return. That's not love according to my version of what love means.

To love is not to ask anything in return, not even to feel that you are giving something.

I never give someone I love the sense that they should love me back just because I love them. If someone I love does not love me back, but I love them, then I am fine with that, it wouldn't change the situation, I would still love them regardless, because loving someone to me is just something that either happens or it doesn't. I can't help who I fall in love with, and I love my children but in no way do I expect them to love me back.
To love someone is not to expect them to love you back by assuming that by loving someone automatically obliges them to love you just because you are giving them something to make them feel as if they have received something from you, and should feel obligated to return that something given by also giving it back. That's what the quote means, well to me anyway, that's how I interpret it as saying.

Of course we ask our loved ones something, like can you pass me the salt at the dinner table. That's just basic communication between two people, and has nothing to do with loving them, or them loving us just because they've answered the question, can you pass the salt, by actually passing the salt. But we cannot ask someone to love us just because we have given our love to them, as a something. That's what the quote means, to me anyway, might not be for you, but for me, that's what it means.

On the other hand, those who are remembered when all others are gone are those who loved us unselfishly. Parents and grandparents, perhaps others, who loved us into being.

One might love one into being, but no one who is loved into being is under any obligation to love back that person who loved them into being. And that person who was loved into being has every right to ask the one who has loved them into being, that they do not want to love them back, just because they chose to love them into being. That's not love.


Loving other people and expecting them to love you back is unhealthy attachment, and that attachment can hurt and deeply wound you, if the loved one dies, or doesn't love you back the way you love them. That's an expectant love, a needy love, that you impose upon yourself, you become dependant on their love, to love you, just because you loved them into being. That is not love, in my humble opinion, so as usual, I do not agree with you Walker.

But thanks for responding to my post with your reply.

[Dontaskme]

The song made famous by Buffy St. Marie back in the day is a furthermore ... that if you set out with the intention of loving everyone, you will be left with no one. This means that loving everyone is not a matter of intention, but rather an uncalculated and thus spontaneous expression of the heart. When loving everyone that way, when you are eventually left with no one, as we all will be when we shed the mortal coil if not sooner, it really will not matter that you will be left with none. It is unavoidable. The only variable to this inevitability is for how long one will be the left with none, and if one who loves all is actually left with none, or is perpetually with God.

I have absolutely no idea what any of that actually means, so I am clueless as to how to make any comment in relation to it.

[Dontaskme]

On the other hand, those who are remembered when all others are gone are those who loved us unselfishly. Parents and grandparents, perhaps others, who loved us into being.

I've no idea what that actually means to be honest. It's just more of your garbled jabber.

But the comment does somehow really bug me, it's a typical conditioned thing to say in my opinion...regarding the word ''unselfishly''

The idea that we love someone else unselfishly. Like your child for example. Never stopping to think that before you decided to love your child unselfishly, something else has been overlooked, which is the idea that might not have occured to you at the time you decided to love someone else into being, that the child you loved into being, just might not have wanted to be loved into being in the first place?

Don't you think it's rather selfish to bring children into the world without their consent, who might not have even wanted to be born.
No, we don't think of that, we think that we are being selfless with our love for our children just automatically taking it for granted that they would love the idea of being loved into being, that's a selfish thing to do in my opinion. I should know, I've done it myself, I've made that mistake myself, thinking I am lovingly bringing a child into being, and yet the reality of that can be catastrophic and heartbreaking for the parent when it discovers the child did not even want to be alive and that it finds no love about being alive and just wants to kill itself. No one hardly ever thinks about that before bringing rather unselfishly another life into the world.

Just because we find love in love doesn't automatically guarantee the one we loved into being will find love in love.

That sort of love requires two.

And that's not love. Love is unconditional, it's neither selfish or unselfish, it doesn't ask for anything, or want anything, expect anything, or need anything. That's the only love there is that's real. It's already complete and whole, needing nothing, asking for nothing, and wanting nothing.

.

[Walker]

To answer your question, I mean the attitude of asking nothing from a loved one will eventually, over time, cause one to be taken for granted by that loved one, and that affects the behavior of the loved one towards you, because you asked for nothing.

If someone I love takes me for granted just because I ask nothing from them, then that is not love. Personally, to love someone,to me, means not taking people I love for granted, and not to ask anything from them in return for my love to them, like for instance, I can love someone, but then wouldn't dream of asking them for their love in return. That's not love according to my version of what love means.

- To ask nothing from someone you love is not loving the person.
- It's shutting the person out.
- Asking for something from someone you love does not mean you are asking for love.
- You can ask for a burger.

[Walker]

The idea that we love someone else unselfishly. Like your child for example. Never stopping to think that before you decided to love your child unselfishly, something else has been overlooked, which is the idea that might not have occured to you at the time you decided to love someone else into being, that the child you loved into being, just might not have wanted to be loved into being in the first place?

And that's not love. Love is unconditional, it's neither selfish or unselfish, it doesn't ask for anything, or want anything, expect anything, or need anything. That's the only love there is that's real. It's already complete and whole, needing nothing, asking for nothing, and wanting nothing.

Did you ever stop to think that the person you love unconditionally (unselfishly) just might not have wanted to be loved unconditionally in the first place?

[Walker]

Esmeralda asks, “Why did you save me?”

The answer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCW7F3aY4Ek

[Walker]

The song made famous by Buffy St. Marie back in the day is a furthermore ... that if you set out with the intention of loving everyone, you will be left with no one. This means that loving everyone is not a matter of intention, but rather an uncalculated and thus spontaneous expression of the heart. When loving everyone that way, when you are eventually left with no one, as we all will be when we shed the mortal coil if not sooner, it really will not matter that you will be left with none. It is unavoidable. The only variable to this inevitability is for how long one will be the left with none, and if one who loves all is actually left with none, or is perpetually with God.

I have absolutely no idea what any of that actually means, so I am clueless as to how to make any comment in relation to it.

But, you just did make a comment. Out of cluelessness. If it's a further explanation you're after, you need a clue upon which to build towards understanding. If you're not after a further explanation then your statement is merely passing judgement upon something external to your subjectivity, based upon an inner clue recognition and extrapolation deficiency that is easily cured with a wee bit of attention, perhaps even contemplation.

But enough of that.

You do have a clue of your own, and that is the unconditional love that you introduced into the topic.

What does unconditional love actually mean? It means to love everyone.
Move on to the next clue which is a verse in the song, the link, that says if you love everyone you will be left with none.

How can this be?

The next clue is non-duality, your favourite.

In order for you to love someone unconditionally there must be two. You, and the object of love. When "you" is no more, there is no two (duality), there is only one (non-duality), and that one that only is, is the object of love ... that is, that one that is the object of love is a reflection within the nature of mind which is as clear as a mirror when not fogged with faux cluelessness.

[Dontaskme]

To answer your question, I mean the attitude of asking nothing from a loved one will eventually, over time, cause one to be taken for granted by that loved one, and that affects the behavior of the loved one towards you, because you asked for nothing.

If someone I love takes me for granted just because I ask nothing from them, then that is not love. Personally, to love someone,to me, means not taking people I love for granted, and not to ask anything from them in return for my love to them, like for instance, I can love someone, but then wouldn't dream of asking them for their love in return. That's not love according to my version of what love means.

- To ask nothing from someone you love is not loving the person.
- It's shutting the person out.
- Asking for something from someone you love does not mean you are asking for love.
- You can ask for a burger.

The quote was specifically pointing to the error of asking someone you love to love you in return, a kind of you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours trade off...that's not love. Love is not asking for love in return, that's what we are talking about...there is no need for you to make this any more complicated than you are doing.

[Walker]

there is no need for you to make this any more complicated than you are doing.

Since love can't be any simpler then that doesn't leave much for discussion on the topic, now does it?

There is obviously a need. The thread exists. Don't ignore reality.

[Dontaskme]

What does unconditional love actually mean? It means to love everyone.

It means LOVE is only possible when there is no SELF

In the same context, a cup is only useful in it's emptiness.

Love is a wide open empty space that allows for it to be filled with self, just as it is, without asking it to be any different.

That's what the beloved is, the beloved can only be everything and nothing. No separation.

[Dontaskme]

Did you ever stop to think that the person you love unconditionally (unselfishly) just might not have wanted to be loved unconditionally in the first place?

The one I love is never obligated to love as I love them, the loved one does not owe me anything, especially to love me back as I love them. The loved one has all the power in them to never want anyone to love them ever. The loved one is always seen as a totally free independant entity who can think for itself, is not bound by anyone else to conform and meet with their approval to be themselves. The loved one is free to express it's own special qualities in it's own right and not because of a connection it has with someone else.

A person cannot do anything to change a person's love for them, by saying I do not want you to love me. They have no power to do that, while they do have the power to not love the one who loves them in return ( because they are a conscious alive being who is able to make choices and have preferences) The unborn don't have that luxury.

The loved person is always free to accept someone's love for them or reject it, and that wont change anything between the two of them, there will still be an open space between the two of them each allowing the other to be themselves without expectation, obligation or commitment to each other. Love is letting go of the attachment to someone else, or expecting them to be any different than what they are in every moment. When there is no expectation or attachment, love is allowed to flow freely and unconditionally.

To let go of someone you love, is to love them unconditionally, even to allow them the choice not to love you, is what love is. And love is also to allow the loved one the choice to kill themselves if they don't want to live anymore, if that's what they want to do. Love allows that without fear of losing them, and without clinging on to someone who just wants to be free, love lets go of all attachment, in the love for what the other person want's to do and be.
That's what love is.

You might not agree, but it's how I understand love to be. So I'm sticking with how I know love, while I do not deny you your way of knowing what love is.

[Dontaskme]

there is no need for you to make this any more complicated than you are doing.

Since love can't be any simpler then that doesn't leave much for discussion on the topic, now does it?

There is obviously a need. The thread exists. Don't ignore reality.

What is simple is very complicated and what is complicated is very simple.

Don't ignore that.

This is a discussion about LOVE

It will continue as long as there are lovers.

Don't ignore it.

Love has no need to love. There is only Love.

Love only needs love where and when there is a need for it. And that's why love is possible, only when the need shows up, in the SELF

[Walker]

There is only Love.

“Wisdom is knowing I am nothing,
Love is knowing I am everything,
and between the two my life moves.”
- Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

[Lacewing]

“Wisdom is knowing I am nothing,
Love is knowing I am everything,
and between the two my life moves.”
- Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

That's beautiful! Why do you seem unaware of this when it comes to your whacked-out political delusions?