True Love

[Razard86]

There are stages to love. 

Stage 1: Lust/Desire: This is the attraction stage, you see something and you desire to obtain it.

Stage 2: Intellectual Love/Rational Love: You can list all the reasons you love a thing and it makes logical sense how it fits into your life and why you value it.

Stage 3: Existential Love: This is TRUE LOVE. It says I love you cause you exist. My only desire is to be with you. I don't want nothing material from you because your being is the greatest gift, it is what the PRESENT is all about. I love you so much that I'm willing to let you go because your freedom is my highest desire for you. 

True Love is God....want to find the greatest gift? Develop True Love....and you will exude it where ever you go.

[aurum]

You will not recieve True Love from any human relationship.

This is a trap.

Stick to conscious, conditional relationships with humans. 

[Lyubov]

2 hours ago, aurum said:

You will not recieve True Love from any human relationship.

This is a trap.

Stick to conscious, conditional relationships with humans. 

You don’t receive love ever because it is not a commodity you can give or take. Love is what you are if you so choose to see through any lies or barriers you’ve created. You experience yourself and then in your relationships you show signs you are experiencing yourself to your partner / wife / husband / kids, etc. Maybe through words or actions which remind them or point them towards experiencing themselves which is also love. So yes, if you prioritize your true self and seeing through any barriers, and you build your relationships on truth then your relationships will in turn be far more authentic and true and be much less about conditions and much more about truth. 

Edited Saturday at 10:51 PM by Lyubov

[Jannes]

3 hours ago, aurum said:

You will not recieve True Love from any human relationship.

This is a trap.

Stick to conscious, conditional relationships with humans. 

There are some very rare exceptions to this rule in a few women I met, but generally I agree that this is the case and for the sake of your sanity you should approach it like this.

You can also look for people who are more stage 2 then 1 if we use this model. 

[Jannes]

Even though its a simple model, it looks quite accurate to me. Although I wouldnt hold my ability to judge such a complex matter too high. 

[aurum]

14 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

So yes, if you prioritize your true self and seeing through any barriers, and you build your relationships on truth then your relationships will in turn be far more authentic and true and be much less about conditions and much more about truth. 

No this is false.

Relationships ARE conditions. They are not about truth in any existential sense at all.

Being more authentic is generally good, but that will only make your conditions more authentic. It does not remove them.

[Lyubov]

42 minutes ago, aurum said:

No this is false.

Relationships ARE conditions. They are not about truth in any existential sense at all.

Being more authentic is generally good, but that will only make your conditions more authentic. It does not remove them.

You look at it far too black and white from my point of view. I never said there weren’t conditions nor that they should not exist. Recognizing there are conditions, meeting those in a relationship and prioritizing truth and open communication in balance with them is living from truth, including if it leads to the relationship ending. Since when is removing conditions entirely what makes something truthful? You see this is probably where we disagree. This is living out of balance and chasing an ideal / perfection, an idea of what true love should be. True love in a relationship is prioritizing truth, which has room for conditions. You can have a condition for a relationship that “I won’t be in a relationship with you if you are addicted to drugs” and still maintain love as yourself. That is true if you live by that, and if both people are living by these conditions and being themselves (love), that is a relationship built on truth. 

Edited Saturday at 11:59 PM by Lyubov

[Natasha Tori Maru]

I am of the opinion existential love between 2 beings can be shared. 

It's not restricted to romantic bonding. 

The key is to view the other piece of consciousness not as another ego or self. But a being within experience just as you are. Borders broken down. No division between you and other. No self to interfere in the experience and interaction. Both beings, no self. Nothing interfering with the experience of pure love connection in confluence between. 

It's going to take 2 supremely consciousness beings. 

So I don't think it can be achieved by 2 normal individuals. 

I think lowering expections for romantic connection to non-existential realms is sensible. 

But it's impossible for me to discount the possibility of @Razard86's proposition.

 

[integration journey]

1 hour ago, aurum said:

No this is false.

Relationships ARE conditions. They are not about truth in any existential sense at all.

Being more authentic is generally good, but that will only make your conditions more authentic. It does not remove them.

I don’t want to generalize but I feel like a mother’s love to her kids is as unconditional as it gets and it’s one of the most pure forms of love found in relationships

[aurum]

24 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

You look at it far too black and white from my point of view. I never said there weren’t conditions nor that they should not exist. Recognizing there are conditions, meeting those in a relationship and prioritizing truth and open communication in balance with them is living from truth, including if it leads to the relationship ending. Since when is removing conditions entirely what makes something truthful? You see this is probably where we disagree. This is living out of balance and chasing an ideal / perfection, an idea of what true love should be. True love in a relationship is prioritizing truth, which has room for conditions. You can have a condition for a relationship that “I won’t be in a relationship with you if you are addicted to drugs” and still maintain love as yourself. That is true if you live by that, and if both people are living by these conditions and being themselves (love), that is a relationship built on truth. 

The prioritization of truth is still very limited. 

Mostly you are talking about basic, relative truths that are needed for the relationship. And your relationship is a vehicle for your survival needs, not existential truth. Which is fine, but just admit what it is and what it isn't.

How much truth do you want? There is a huge spectrum.

[aurum]

33 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I am of the opinion existential love between 2 beings can be shared. 

"Existential love" "2 beings".

A contradiction in terms.

[aurum]

11 minutes ago, integration journey said:

I don’t want to generalize but I feel like a mother’s love to her kids is as unconditional as it gets and it’s one of the most pure forms of love found in relationships

It might be pure by human standards.

But it's not unconditional, and it's not existential love.

Edited yesterday at 12:31 AM by aurum

[Lyubov]

8 minutes ago, aurum said:

The prioritization of truth is still very limited. 

Mostly you are talking about basic, relative truths that are needed for the relationship. And your relationship is a vehicle for your survival needs, not existential truth. Which is fine, but just admit what it is and what it isn't.

How much truth do you want? There is a huge spectrum.

How is the prioritization of truth here very limited? All you have in relationships ultimately is communication and if you are doing that honestly you are prioritizing truth…. From my POV you are making distinctions I see no point in. Existential truth? What? What is existentially true in a relationship is when two people are communicating truthfully which includes communicating your conditions honestly and finding what is in harmony with each other, like I said. Yes, a relationship has needs that need to be met, how does that make it less true? I do not align with your model to be honest or your application. 

Edited yesterday at 12:37 AM by Lyubov

[Lyubov]

35 minutes ago, integration journey said:

I don’t want to generalize but I feel like a mother’s love to her kids is as unconditional as it gets and it’s one of the most pure forms of love found in relationships

But don’t conflate relationships with love. They are two separate things. Love is not a commodity that can be given or taken away. It is hard to put into words but it is truth, it is the sun. You can recognize this sun within yourself and clear the clouds and then choose to act in a way in which you shine, regardless of conditions you honor or what needs you have which you may be pursuing. A mom shows signs she is experiencing this sun within herself by caring for her baby and treating it well. You can love and still have conditions. A mom experiences herself and cares for her child and mirrors back to the baby the love the baby has within itself. All relationships revolve around the same thing where you may tap into various aspects of your true self more than with others based on the arrangement of them. For example, you may not see this as much in your mailman but if you stopped for a moment you still may have love for their existence and wish them well in life just as much as any other person. You may see this more apparently in your wife though who you live with and relate to often and have various things you share together and various needs you fulfill for each other. 

Edited yesterday at 12:55 AM by Lyubov

[aurum]

22 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

How is the prioritization of truth here very limited? All you have in relationships ultimately is communication and if you are doing that honestly you are prioritizing truth…. From my POV you are making distinctions I see no point in. Existential truth? What? What is existentially true in a relationship is when two people are communicating truthfully which includes communicating your conditions honestly and finding what is in harmony with each other, like I said. Yes, a relationship has needs that need to be met, how does that make it less true? I do not align with your model to be honest or your application. 

You're just not considering how deep truth can go.

Truth is way beyond some honest communication in a relationship.

Edited yesterday at 12:58 AM by aurum

[UnbornTao]

Can something that is based on interaction be said to exist in and of itself? Can it stand on its own two feet, so to speak?

Edited yesterday at 01:31 AM by UnbornTao

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 hour ago, aurum said:

"Existential love" "2 beings".

A contradiction in terms.

EXACTLY. Because one. Realizing we are all one. One mind. One breath. Pneuma. 

I don't see any contradiction

[aurum]

28 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

EXACTLY. Because one. Realizing we are all one. One mind. One breath. Pneuma. 

I don't see any contradiction

The contradiction is if you're thinking it can occur between two beings.

Or that it even requires two beings at all.

You don't need two supremely conscious beings, just one. Which is you.

[Hojo]

If you do this your loved one will try to kill you by rules of the simulation. Then see if you can be God and love them unconditionally. Its the story of Jesus. He love unconditionally look what happened the simulation attack him. You will never get that kind of love between people or God wouldn't have to exist.

Edited yesterday at 02:44 AM by Hojo

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 minute ago, aurum said:

The contradiction is if you're thinking it can occur between two beings.

Or that it even requires two beings at all.

You don't need two supremely conscious beings, just one. Which is you.

I understand what you are saying.

But I don't see the contradiction. 

This is the relative plane. Behind it all the absolute is oneness, love.

Recognizing within the relative that 2 are one isn't a contradiction for me.