I have my dream girlfriend

[Preety_India]

1 minute ago, sourcetruth said:

Have you experienced true love before? I'm trying to understand what it is like.

It's difficult to explain in words. It's to be experienced 

[intotheblack]

2 minutes ago, sourcetruth said:

I'm trying to understand what it is like.

It’s being. No games. Just existing together. It’s like when you get past the rapids on a wild river and then the water goes calm but keeps flowing. 

But of course the lower conscious you are the more boring this would be.  There is no drama.  

You are free to just be, in the presence of another. 
 

[Consept]

4 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

@Consept your definition of real love is based in scarcity and you try to mask it as accordance. My idea of real love is based in abundance. Acceptance of ugly is being complacent and not abundant. A beautiful relationship has it's own meaning and criteria. It is people who constantly vouch for acceptance of the ugly that need to start accepting the fact that they can't and don't Create Space for the beautiful.

 

Well I said acceptance of the good, bad and ugly, which includes the beautiful, you seem to be saying you only want the beautiful. 

If you switch it to say a mother's love for their child, the child may not always be beautiful but the mother will accept all sides of the child, ugly or otherwise. This type of relationship is the closest to unconditional love imo. 

If you think of 'God's love' it is about pure acceptance, for example in the Bhagavad-Gita God shows his true form which includes the good, bad and ugly to Arjuna who can't handle it. 

With romantic relationships, you yourself are saying that the ugly shouldn't be accepted within this and this is even a scarcity mindset. But this seems to be a conditional arrangement based on the other person meeting whatever criteria you have, which is very different to the examples I've laid out. 

[Preety_India]

@Consept the analogy was completely absurd.

A mother doesn't lose interest in her child. Similarly in unconditional romantic love, there is no loss of interest.

You're doing too much strawmaning 

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by Preety_India

[Consept]

3 hours ago, Preety_India said:

@Consept the analogy was completely absurd.

A mother doesn't lose interest in her child. Similarly in unconditional romantic love, there is no loss of interest.

You're doing too much strawmaning 

 

My point is fairly simple, I'm just saying it is extremely rare that there is unconditional love in romantic relationships. By saying you're not willing to accept the ugly (as well as the beautiful in a relationship) , creates a condition, thereby making it conditional love. My point with the mother and child is that the mother is more likely to accept the ugly in her child, making it closer to unconditional. 

[Preety_India]

18 minutes ago, Consept said:

My point is fairly simple, I'm just saying it is extremely rare that there is unconditional love in romantic relationships. By saying you're not willing to accept the ugly (as well as the beautiful in a relationship) , creates a condition, thereby making it conditional love. My point with the mother and child is that the mother is more likely to accept the ugly in her child, making it closer to unconditional. 

Yea but the example is just wrong. You're equating ugly in terms of looks to ugly in terms of character, heaven and hell difference with no correlation. A mother loving her child unconditionally is the same as a lover loving his partner unconditionally. You completely missed my point. Even though it's romantic love, it is still a form of love and lovers can stay lovers till eternity. Just like the unconditional love of the mother.  You're quick to give the example of the unconditional love of a mother while comparing ugly and beautiful in semantic ways whereas you use this confusing analogy to a completely different situation where acceptance is  not to be expected from a woman who is being abandoned by a man (because he lost interest in her) but acceptance is required of the man in accepting the woman he is in love with. It's like you're using the right example to explain a wrong situation. The behaviour of someone who is being superficial is not to be accepted because it's not a reciprocation of unconditional love. Unconditional love in a relationship exists on both ends or else it becomes dysfunctional. Your point is that you want the woman to accept the man's behaviour and exhibit unconditional love in such acceptance. But your blind spot is that you've in the same breath failed to apply the same discourse to the man. If she is expected to show unconditional love in terms of reaction, he needs to show unconditional love in terms of action. This is like a sinner will keep sinning with no accountability meanwhile the onus of forgiveness is only on the forgiver. But when it comes to values and principles, it applies to everyone fairly and equally, none is exempt from it, so from your point of view, you only hold the woman accountable for showing exemplary love, but not the man, which is sorta hypocritical and a tad bit patriarchal in my opinion,to be so heavy handed when it comes to judging what a woman should exhibit but completely lenient when it comes to a man 

In an unconditional loving relationship,it's the duty of both to achieve such a state, not the obligation of merely one party, that's why I said that to create a beautiful bond, both have to get rid of their ugliness, in accepting a woman for who she is (when a man claims to love her), he is getting rid of his ugliness and bringing his beautiful side and she brings her beautiful side by equally reciprocating his love. In unconditional love there is no place for ugly and this does not mean in terms of appearance but values and principles. In unconditional love, we exhibit our best versions and not our ugly versions. 

The kind of acceptance that you're speaking of is submission not love, love co-creates. Submission is a form of passivity towards another's actions, which arises from low self worth. It's called putting up with bullshit in the name of love, disguised as acceptance. It's a weakness of character, not a sign of virtue.

 

[Consept]

@Preety_India

Couple things because you keep misquoting or misunderstanding me, I'll assume its not intentional, but it makes for an unnecessarily long discussion where I have to clarify every word. 

One, I never meant ugly as in appearance, I mean ugly as in the bad or shadow side of people, it specifically concerns character, I didn't even consider looks. 

Two, I never made a distinction on what gender should accept the other, I never said a woman should accept bullshit and a man shouldn't. Obviously both would have to accept each other. 

Three, I didn't say passively accept, something can still piss you off and you have boundaries etc, but overall you accept that person. Again with the example of mother and child it's not a passive acceptance, if the child does something wrong the mother will tell the child off, but whatever the child does, even it grows up to be a killer the love will still be unconditional. 

Assuming you've had this end of eternity love that you speak of with someone, are you still with them now? 

[Preety_India]

@Consept no I'm not with them 

 

[Consept]

28 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

@Consept no I'm not with them 

 

What happened? 

[Etherial Cat]

Until the ego is transcended, all relationships have both an element of survival and an element of genuine love under it. The thickness of the egos is what causes its quality to fluctuate.

A lot of people here apply the one drop rule and assume that because the ego is lurking, it invalidates the whole thing and makes it only an ego trip. It all exist in a spectrum. Also, love exists underneath the ego.

Rumi said: Love is, when we meet without you and without me. People who meet each other this way have very little personal substance that obstructs their innermost being and this being recognizes itself via the other. That's what this is.

But yeah, the principle is that a relationship is only as conscious as the two individuals in it.

Love is the collapse of what separates us. With most people, you'll find a significant amount of limitation to this collapse due to diverse incompatibilities.

A friendship is a partial collapse, an intimate relationship is a wish for a total collapse and the expression of our beings.

Here is what Rupert Spira says about it:

There are some people that we meet and we have this intuition that if we were to come together and express this shared being, that every part of our body and mind would be touched by the relationship, that no part of us would remain unseen or closed. So that kind of relationship has a much greater power to permeate every aspect of our lives. So the shared being is expressed intellectually, emotionally, physically, in every way that sense of our shared being touches every aspect of our lives and that there is a kind of dance that goes on intellectually, emotionally and physically in which that one's entire body mind is opened up to the love that is shared. That you can't do with everybody.

[JJfromSwitzerland]

15 hours ago, Preety_India said:

my exact point. I have relationships in my family that have lasted more than 40 years. People believe in their own illusions and call reality Disney when it doesn't fit them..

cause they probably had no other choice so they managed to be together through the bad and good times but I'm sure it's not like in the Disney movies where everything is perfect

[JJfromSwitzerland]

45 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

Until the ego is transcended, all relationships have both an element of survival and an element of genuine love under it. The thickness of the egos is what causes its quality to fluctuate.

A lot of people here apply the one drop rule and assume that because the ego is lurking, it invalidates the whole thing and makes it only an ego trip. It all exist in a spectrum. Also, love exists underneath the ego.

Rumi said: Love is, when we meet without you and without me. People who meet each other this way have very little personal substance that obstructs their innermost being and this being recognizes itself via the other. That's what this is.

But yeah, the principle is that a relationship is only as conscious as the two individuals in it.

Love is the collapse of what separates us. With most people, you'll find a significant amount of limitation to this collapse due to diverse incompatibilities.

A friendship is a partial collapse, an intimate relationship is a wish for a total collapse and the expression of our beings.

Here is what Rupert Spira says about it:

There are some people that we meet and we have this intuition that if we were to come together and express this shared being, that every part of our body and mind would be touched by the relationship, that no part of us would remain unseen or closed. So that kind of relationship has a much greater power to permeate every aspect of our lives. So the shared being is expressed intellectually, emotionally, physically, in every way that sense of our shared being touches every aspect of our lives and that there is a kind of dance that goes on intellectually, emotionally and physically in which that one's entire body mind is opened up to the love that is shared. That you can't do with everybody.

thanks, hello back to Switzerland;)

[JJfromSwitzerland]

16 hours ago, Harlen Kelly said:

@Preety_India Relationships are mostly survival. Romantic ''love'' does not equal to unconditional love or the recognition of the other as you. 

People go into relationships mostly to play out their unconsciousness and use the other person as an emotional crutch. That's the vast majority of relationships. 

agree

[JJfromSwitzerland]

16 hours ago, kinesin said:

Do your parents not love each other?  How about your grandparents?  Any uncles and aunts who love each other?

My own parents have true love, they've had it for over 40 years.  The fact that you don't believe it's possible indicates to me that you simply haven't witnessed it anywhere in your own life, and that failure to engage in love is the root of your issue for sure.

yeah I had no divorce in my family but they just accepted to be with each other no matter what. I think it's because society wants it and it's easier to manage life and family and not because of unconditional love.

I think this is the case in almost in every long term relationship - it makes life much easier.

[Etherial Cat]

@Peter Miklis

It's just a beautiful expression of unity in the relative.

Consciousness making love to itself in the world of form.

[Spence94]

@JJfromSwitzerland

On 19/05/2021 at 1:28 AM, Preety_India said:

 

What you're describing is not true Love but Lust.

Lust always ends in disappointment.

 

True Love is long lasting. And lovers never lose interest. No fantasy.just truth.

You never had emotions to begin with. They were false emotions. Like a false alarm.

True emotions are very strong and don't disappear simply due to time or circumstances.

 

I don't think he was trying to spout disney fairytale bullshit. You said yourself you haven't realised Enlightenment yet. So maybe the cause of your issue is that your ego is trying to find fulfillment in a woamn and in a relationship. Your ego is creating nice emotions that seem caused by the woman and by the relationship. Your ego is taking love from the woman and your ego is being "a lover" and giving love to the woman, which both make your ego feel good. However, all of these things are illusory and can not be sustained or truly satisfy you. As you awaken, you move away from being " a lover" to "being love". If you and your woman are both living in the Truth of your real nature and not your Egos then you can truly "be in love" and the emotions you feel in regards to the woman and relationship will be True and not deceptive and based upon conditions that are illusory. You need to become just as content alone as you are with a woman. Then if you can find a woman who can meet you in that place of Truth and not ego, then the two of you can rise "in love" together. 

Edited May 20, 2021 by Spence94