Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Conversations with (so many) nobody(ies)

************************************************************************************************
This post was up on this blog over a year ago, but it is special as the people mentioned in it are so. Between when it was published and now, one of the participants got married and two of them are going to get married very very very soon (like tomorrow!). MaheshC and I remain the same, unchanged by time ;-p
Those were days when a few of us used to blog and comment regularly. I think we have all grown up and become serious adults! :-( I miss those days when participating on blogs was so regular and full of life. With some folks we would comment and then discuss comments over the phone (across states, sometimes). I doubt whether that fervour would ever return to the blogging world. :-
It brings back a lot of fond memories (honestly, I couldn't make head or tail of the comments on this post!)... Here is to the wonderful people in this post.

************************************************************************************************

This was a conversation I had with some very interesting thinkers. I am sure most of the readers of my blog have already visited their pages, or maybe not. It was about 20:00 hrs (while in bed) on 3rd March 2005 when I had this conversation although the conversation was in the coffee shop of Landmark in Spencer's a little before lunch time... You'll figure, don't worry. Meera, Extrospectrivia and I were sitting at this table with my back towards the counter (I had to look away from those brownies in the jar). We were waiting for Renuka and MaheshC. They had promised to arrive some time ago but they haven't.

Pan to a table where all of us are seated, still with my back to the counter.

MaheshC: I suppose you are the only one who actually writes such detailed comments
Meera: (Rolls her eyes) Yeah right!
Like A Feather: Actually, I like to write so ...
Meera: But longer than our posts? Puhleaaze.
LAF: Its not about the length. I like to point out what I felt and liked in the post. If I see something that could have been changed then I suggest.
MC: But I like those comments. Sounds genuine.
LAF: Exactly, I can't just stop by and drop a "Brilliant" or a "So nice"
Me: I agree with you, Eroteme. I was just pulling your leg...
Renuka: But people who drop those comments are not necessarily insincere
LAF: Agreed, but repeated "That was so great" makes me wonder "Why?". Think about it. When I say on your blog that I like your post, shouldn't I let you know what parts I liked and what parts I didn't? Wouldn't that make you feel a shade better, Renuka? Uhh, by the way, is there a shorter form to your name?
[MaheshC and Meera laugh. Extro smiles]
R: Renu
LAF: Cool. I'll keep alternating if that is ok. So back to the original point. Shouldn't people know why they like something rather than paste a comment like a smile on the corridor.
MC: You used that same expression on my blog
LAF: Yeah, I'm running low on creativity off late... So tell me Renu. Huh?
R: [After a deep inhalation] What you say is right, Eroteme, but not everyone wants to give a detailed comment, and ...
LAF: Then why comment? Simply to let me know that you also read my post?
R: What's wrong about that? As in, my friends ...
LAF: Nothing wrong. I am not saying that these guys are bad or wrong, all...
R: Don't interrupt me!
LAF: Oopsy daisy. Sorry.
R: [Smiles] Its ok I was just... See my friends would want to simply drop by and say that they liked my post. Why must they define their likes?
LAF: Nothing wrong with defining likes or dislikes. When I go to a shop and pick a shirt, and someone asks me "Why do you like it?" I think I would be able to give countable reasons for that. "I don't have this colour.", "Nice stripes, naah?", "I wanted a shirt like this ever since I watched Ace Ventura!"
[Laughter around the table]
LAF: Thank the lord. I thought I was in a morgue!
MC: But I agree with Renuka. Sometimes the comments would be general, because breaking it down to parts might make them lose the mystery of it. Sometimes its simply the feeling of joy in reading such a piece.
LAF: But defining something doesn't kill the beauty of the thing. I think it was Feynman who once said that studying the stars doesn't take the beauty out of them. Calling them a gaseous mass doesn't make them less beautiful on a cloudless night sky.
Me: Actually, they are right, Eroteme. In spite of the many conversations when we agreed on this, I think we can't help general comments at times too.
LAF: I am lost. I think it is a problem with what I think is the purpose of a comment. I think the comment is more to let a person know what I felt when I read the post. And in that...
R: Feeling nice or finding the post brilliant is ok, right?
MC: Yeah
R: It's like when someone says that he or she is in love.
LAF: Oh oh. Don't go there...
Me: [with a grin] Why not? I know you hate that topic, but...
LAF: I don't hate it. I just don't seem to be looking in the same direction that others have their faces towards.
R: What's wrong with love?
LAF: Nothing Renuka, but its more about my beliefs. I believe that Love too can be and rather should be defined.
R: What?
MC: This is getting interesting.
Me: This is only the start.
LAF: Guys, help me.
R: Love should be defined? As in what? How?
LAF: See, I think that when someone says that "I love someone" I think the person should know why.
R: Why?
LAF: Exactly
R: No, no. Why should they know that? Love is such a nice feeling.
LAF: Who said anything about it being bad? All I am saying is that a lover should know why he or she is in love.
R: You are mad.
LAF: What?
R: As in, can't someone just love somebody?
LAF: Yeah, anyone can do what they want. All I am saying is that, I would prefer it that way.
Me: But love doesn't have to have reasons. Its a feeling, an emotion.
LAF: But so is anger, and don't we always have a reason for being angry? And don't we find someone silly for being angry for no reason?
R: Its not the same.
Me: I agree with you. Anger is also an emotion and it usually has a reason.
LAF: Usually? I think it always does. Rarely does one say "I am mad at him but can't put my finger on it"
One of the coffee shop boys: Sir, would you like to place an order?
LAF: Sure. Would love to but in another 5 minutes. Is that ok?
Boy: Sure, Sir. No problems.
LAF: And to think that the Queen is working overtime trying to figure out whom to knight next.
R: What?
LAF: No nothing.
MC: How do you define love?
LAF: Nice piece. I really love the way the flute goes on that one tuuu-ruru. tuuu-ruru. And then the piano starts. Really nice. Mahesh, there is no one definition for love. Each individual needs to know why one loves and be able to put it down in words.
R: That is what has made love so mechanical and artificial.
Me: I agree. Though I have something ...
R: And that is why people keep falling out of love and divorce rates are climbing.
LAF: Actually I don't think divorce is the bad thing out here. It is the love that got them in there. Had they thought about the "Why" in their love they might have realised that a marriage, though nice, would not work.
R: What? And how does that happen?
LAF: See, Renu. Its pretty simple. When I say I love... say that lady in rust colour kurta over there...
Me: I was wondering why you were looking over there. She's ok.
MC: Looks good to me.
LAF: Me too. Nice stilettoes.
R: Guys. Relax. She's probably married.
LAF: Aaah. Experienced! Hmmm. Nice, really nice.
[Laughs]
Me: [Laughs] No wonder you can't find a girl.
LAF: Of course I can, I am just not looking around.
Me: Sour grapes!
[Everyone laughs]
LAF: Glad that lightened the situation. Suddenly things seemed a little serious.
R: You still have to tell me about how divorce is good.
LAF: Boy! She doesn't let go does she? I never said that divorce is good. I am simply saying that divorce might not be the bad guy in the whole picture.
R: How?
LAF: See, if the two people had fallen in love after understanding what exactly made them believe that they were in love, then things make sense and then people are prepared for nearly everything.
R: Huh?
LAF: Let's go back to the woman in rust.
MC: Let's.
LAF: [Smiles] If I come to you and tell you that I love her, I am most likely to have a set of reasons. I might find her a wonderful conversationalist, a considerate person, someone who doesn't really have airs about herself, whatever. But I will have definite reasons. There would still be those "something only she can do" things...
[Laughter around the table]
LAF: No no. I don't mean that. God! I mean those things which people say... forget it. But most of my reasons would be there. Hence, tomorrow if I contemplate marrying her...
MC: The lady in rust?
LAF: Yeah
Me: But you hardly know her.
LAF and R: [Together] Guys!
LAF: So tomorrow if I plan on marrying her, I can at least be sensible about what I decide. I might love her but realise that her eccentricities can be too wacky at times, or the way she doesn't care about a thing is not really something cool in a family. I would still love her, but realise that I don't see marriage working out. Had I not such reasons, it would be likely that I would be riding the wave into a marriage and then think about these things, and if it gets out of hand and divorce is an option we both would consider, then yes, divorce it shall be. Here, divorce is not the bad thing but the baseless or unthought feeling of love that is the problem.
R: Hmmm
Me: What does this have to do with comments?
MC: Beats me.
LAF: Yeah, what does this have to do with comments?
R: We were comparing simple comments to simply falling in love.
Me: There is no divorcing comments.
LAF: Yeah, but haven't you felt often that comments of this sort on a piece you really didn't consider your best or one of your best, makes you feel worse?
MC: Eroteme, I think you need to realise that our blogs are not merely up for literary review. That is what you do.
LAF: And that's bad? Secondly, its not always a literary review. Sometimes it just about the way things are expressed. Don't I do that on your posts, Mahesh? Apart from the literary review?
Me: No, not bad. Just different. It feels nice to know that someone has actually bothered to read our work so closely.
MC: Yeah.
Me: Though it makes me wonder what mistakes I am going to make every time I post a new one.
LAF: Awww. Come on. I am not here for nit-picking.
MC: No, no. Its fine. Actually it is.
R: It is, but simple comments are fine too.
LAF: Hmmm. I'll agree with you. No, not because I have to. I suppose sometimes, and rarer the better, we would not want to think about what makes us feel nice about a post, but simply bask in the niceness we feel after reading it. So I suppose that it is ok. But, you will still get long comments from me.
[A little pause around the table, though everyone seems to be smiling and happy]
Extrospectrivia: What books did you buy yourself?
LAF: Chronicles of Narnia
MC: Isn't that the children's book?
LAF: Yup. Interesting one.
Ex: And the other book?
LAF: Cambridge's Etymology.
Me: What?
Ex: Together they pretty much summarise your life, right?
LAF: [Smiles] Actually, yeah.
Boy: Are you ready for placing an order, Sir.


Disclaimer:
None of what transpired in my head reflects anything about the participants (including me to a certain extent!). If I have offended anyone, I would like to know, and I shall rectify the situation to my best. I have met none of these people, except Meera. This conversation left me with a pretty disturbed night's sleep and really bad dreams! Nothing to do with the people in it, though I would love to blame the lady in rust for hastily walking away...Or maybe ice cream and sauce don't go well together for dinner!!

21 comments:

  1. Thank you so much, Lakshmi. I was fairly aware of your visits, but wasn't sure... :-) I still have to comment on your "My heart found silence" post. Will do so sometime soon...

    ReplyDelete
  2. do u want a simple comment or.... jus kiddin - it s a good idea that u have come up with - and a good disclaimer too - will need some time to post an exhaustive comment - gimme some time :-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Eroteme - A couple of things:

    1) Coffee shop in Landmark Spencer's serves really bad coffee.

    2) What were u doing in bed at 20:00 hrs on a weekday?

    And thats all I have to say about that! :-)

    More later...

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with Renuka - need some time for a detailed comment - and you know what that means right? ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Renuka, Its fine. As you must have realised, I agreed to your POV by the end of the conversation. So its ok with this comment too. But I am glad to finally see a comment from you!

    Meera, Meera, Meera. I am surprised that I still retain my sanity. I never said we had coffee. I was careful in that, and I still do remember your opinion about that coffee shop. The brownies aren't really bad out there. Java Green? What do you mean what was I doing in bed on a weekday? :-))
    That sounds really bad!!! :-))
    I always try to go to bed by 20:00 hrs. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  7. tht was quite a surprise - within five minutes i find 7 comments from 2 when i originally read this post

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ta da ... Detailed comment - You asked for it young man (guessin you are ;-))

    Finally I've put my finger bang on the problem. When you just left the comment on my blog about the 'definition' I was wondering ...

    Lets get to your discussion - You want a definition for love because you think and know that there has to be a reason for a person to fall in love with another. Because ... she is a good conversationalist, she is etc etc etc ... and therefore your stand on divorce is also justified because when no longer you find those traits or charecteristics which at first you found appealing - then yep - you have to let go - AGREED. *pat you*

    *Big Sigh*

    ME - that's Me trouvaille - firmly believe in something else. Let me make my oft repeated saga short - LOVE has NO REASON. True love is unconditional. Simply because when the reason no longer exists ... one will fall out of it. You have given me an excellent comparison - Anger - Just imagine a feeling like anger with no reason ... A person who is forever fuelled by anger ... I hate to even imagine that - that's why any sane person usually has a reason for anger, once the reason is found and quenched - its over - water under the bridge.

    Love, unlike any emotion has no reason and is unconditional - that is why it is above every other virtue. Love in its purest form is love without reason and that is why it is 'Immortal' If at all it had a reason - once the reason is found and dissected and bisected and defined ..... That would be the end of it!

    Anyway, if love according to some XYZ was 'Blind' and I am asked to conform - because that is what generally happens - some hot shot defines something and others are expected to follow - well, I for one would be a rebel. Love of all things is not blind. O yea it does not have a reason and you would immediately say - I am contradicting myself - But heck - it is not blind.

    Me in one of my good moods - so I'll explain - When u know u r in love and u simply dont know why you feel that way for that certain person ... yup u are getting into it without knowing anything against all rational thought - obviously - blinded. True love the one I am talking about - unconditional - is the kind of love which gets into it taking up the responsibility... The kind of love which knows to be patient and not demanding. I'm talking about a mature mind not the immature one which seeks constant gratification and confirmation of love.

    Sick of those - He does not tell me he loves me as often as he used to !!! He would bring home flowers - that's why I loved him!!! That's not LOVE.

    You say you love some one because .... Sorry, you dont love there - you've got yourself into some business contract which has a reason to exist and will die or cease to exist on the expiration of the reason - O yea you've definitely opened eyes and read the contract through, unfortunately u dont read between the lines and think u r in love !!!

    Hey, wrote down that lil thing about flirtation in your Koan - check it out - Hmmm... Enough lessons on emotions !!! :-) So, wil be checkin up your comments and replies only on Thursday when I get home - so ... untill then - keep blogging - but dont tell you are in love if you know 'why' you are in love. Lets have at least one Mystery.

    Which brings me to that thing you'd written about sex being a mystery !!! I've replied in my blog. LOL You sure are one very opinionated guy - who I like to think is asking interesting questions - But when u either wake up on the wrong side of your bed or are in a bad mood with your boss - NEVER leave a comment ... write when you're in a good mood.

    Adieu :-)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hold it there - Yeah - "A person who is forever fuelled by anger ... I hate to even imagine that - that's why any sane person usually has a reason for anger, once the reason is found and quenched - its over - water under the bridge."

    So, a person in love is INSANE ... LOL ... This is something I wont explain - actually - What is sanity and insanity - Definition ? There is one. What about the fire fighter who jumps into the burning house to rescue some one ... Sane ? Insane ? Insanely in love ..? Sanely in love? Passionately in love ?

    Actually I like to just see all these - comment and not judge or condemn ! I got to really get going to pack off to Sharjah !

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dear Trou, I suppose I am old, and many think similarly of me, but numerically I am younger than you!!
    "LOVE has NO REASON"
    And hence, divorcing from this love (which is different from legal divorce) also needn't have a reson. Agreed? Hmmm. One can't be hungry for no reason and satiated for specific reasons.
    Hahahahahaha :-)) I am so glad that you caught yourself. Save's me the trouble of appearing as a pain! This refers to "So, a person in love is INSANE "
    "Love, unlike any emotion has no reason and is unconditional - that is why it is above every other virtue."
    Sorry for sounding hard: Love isn't virtuous. One loves because one wishes to be loved in return. Can you spot me 1 person who loves and doesn't care (not doesn't mind) about whether s/he is loved in return by the object of her/his love? No, no. Not yourself. We are always adept at spotting ourselves when it concerns something like this!!! ;-)
    Love is (in popular display) a need. Some people wax over it and want to call it noble things. And some people see it as it is. My concept of love, which I haven't even touched upon, is something totally unacceptable to many in this world... I shall blog about that sometime later.

    "and you would immediately say - I am contradicting myself - But heck - it is not blind"
    You know me fairly well by now!!! ;-) Is my being a pain so obvious?

    "I'm talking about a mature mind not the immature one which seeks constant gratification and confirmation of love."
    Good. We talk about the same thing here, but...

    "You say you love some one because .... Sorry, you dont love there - you've got yourself into some business contract which has a reason to exist and will die or cease to exist on the expiration of the reason - O yea you've definitely opened eyes and read the contract through, unfortunately u dont read between the lines and think u r in love !!!"
    That's why I never say I am in love, or rather, always in love...
    Point is (apart from a sorry attempt at a pun) would you fall in love with someone who doesn't believe in your most core value? Let's assume that you are very clear about honesty (I would have picked up a habit, but then hey! I have heard enough rebuttals for that) and make little compromise about it. You meet this guy and you fall in love with him (no reasons). You are married to him (congratulations!!) and 7 years down the line you realise that he has been fibbing to you about a lot of things (let us leave out extra/pre-marital affairs here). Fibbing without a concern as to what you would feel. Mind you your love for him is unconditional and unreasonable (ha! I love saying that). Hence, it doesn't include his loving you or say, respecting you. What now? I suppose you would be loving him inspite of all the situations where you got to realise (lets add some vino and spice to this) in front of so many friends and family members that he has been lying to you. Oooh! la la. I do not even venture into figuring out whether you would stay married to him, for marriage to me is ... another blog post! Don't you dare stop loving him, for your love is unconditional!! ;-) Kidding. No mockery intended. Honest. Smile? Please?
    I am not heading towards a contractual realisation of love. Oh! no. All I said in that conversation was, divorce in a relationship, which had no basis, is not necessarily the bad thing! Simple. I say nothing much about love. And not much about divorce as well. I was merely playing the Devil's advocate (have you seen the movie? Neat).

    "Lets have at least one Mystery."
    I hear there is a new book in the Hardy Boys series...

    "You sure are one very opinionated guy"
    Opinionated? How? Just wondering. Read my comment a few times, and still wondering.

    " - who I like to think is asking interesting questions - But when u either wake up on the wrong side of your bed or are in a bad mood with your boss - NEVER leave a comment ... write when you're in a good mood."

    I like to think that I am flattered by your comment. But then hey! I like so many things...
    Let me let you into my room. Picture this. My bed has 4 sides (some shorter than the others). Now I can get off only on one side. I could do a reverse somersault and get down from over my headboard, or slide straight down and land on my computer, or get off the other side and bang against a wall, which, if I manage to break through will land me in my washing machine in my rest (?) room. Hence, I can get off only one side. And I usually write to get into a good mood!! Like now.

    Definition of sanity and insanity? Oh! Boy. I have been typing out since 4:45 in the morning and it is now 7:33. I think this is insanity. Had I stopped at 4:48, that would be sanity. Or did I get them wrong? Or not?

    Dear Meera,
    "...need some time for a detailed comment - and you know what that means right? ;-)"
    Actually, I don't. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Let me make my often repeated saga short - LOVE has NO REASON. True love is unconditional. Simply because when the reason no longer exists ... one will fall out of it.Wow, man what a neat li’ll piece of truth. I agree with her Eroteme, if you think u need reasons to fall in 'n out of love, you are more or less employing somebody as your 'loved one'. When you divorce the person, you are just disposing off somebody who you found was good for some reasons, but wasn’t good enough in the long run. Doesn’t that sound bad? :(

    See, if the two people had fallen in love after understanding what exactly made them believe that they were in love, then things make sense and then people are prepared for nearly everything.

    If I come to you and tell you that I love her, I am most likely to have a set of reasons. I might find her a wonderful conversationalist, a considerate person, someone who doesn't really have airs about herself, whatever. But I will have definite reasons. There would still be those "something only she can do" things...
    Definitely, there could be qualities that make you like some one, but once you are into the relationship; these qualities cannot be the factor deciding the very existence of the relationship.

    One loves because one wishes to be loved in return. Can you spot me 1 person who loves and doesn't care (not doesn't mind) about whether s/he is loved in return by the object of her/his love? No, no. Not yourself. We are always adept at spotting ourselves when it concerns something like this!!!Sure enough, there isn’t a soul who wouldn’t care a damn if he/she loves and isn’t loved in return. This is in my opinion a pre-requisite for a relationship to work. I wouldn’t call this a condition.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I will make this short as I have to rush elsewhere.

    I would not offer anything more in support of my stance. I request all the angels against the Devil's advocate to answer the following questions (even to yourself is fine):

    1. How different is Love from any other emotion? Nearly all emotions need an "I" and an object (usu. a human).

    2. Why do practical elements creep into love as time passes by?

    3. Would you still love a person who doesn't respect you or love you in return?

    4. Why do people say that it hurts when someone you "love" leaves them? If love is virtuous and unconditional and a mystery and whatever you will, why should it cause pain?

    5. Would you disagree that an individual can love more than one person?

    6. Is it possible to decide not to love?

    7. Is having a reason for things inappropriate? Is going into the mind to find out why one is angry or why one is jealous or why one is in love, a destructive or degenerative or an unacceptable process?

    8. If one can love unconditionally, why does one hold great importance for loyalty, honesty, trust, understanding etc.?

    9. Is love an interplay of images created by the fecundity of the mind?

    Xena, this one is for you: What is the difference between pre-requisite and condition?

    I am mostly done with presenting my stance... Wish all of you a "love"ly day...

    ReplyDelete
  13. K..here are my answeres. I will offer nothing more in support of my stance either.

    1) I agree. Nobody denied it I guess

    2)They do creep in but they don't change the way you look at your loved one.

    3)I personally would'nt. As I said its a pre-requisite

    4)If you care about some 1, then u definitely would miss the person. I don't c anything amiss or illogical. Do u?

    5)I agree that a person is quite capable of loving his/her kith and kin, but, if v talking about a spouse/lover, I strongly disagree.

    There could be N number of men with all the qualities that I would look for in my man. It is insanity and an impossibility to fall in love with all of them.

    6)Its possible to restrain yourself from expressing what you think about someone, but I don't think anybody could stop something that comes naturally.

    7)Having a reason is appropriate always. In this case, the only thing that is inappropriate is deciding to get rid of someone from your life just 'cos there are some qualities missing(suddenly)

    Its very much acceptable. Study of the human mind and thought process is by far the most complex and most interesting study in my opinion.

    8)There is'nt just the 2 of them, the subject of our talk and his/her object of affection. There are other ppl in this world. These values still are important.

    This apart,even between the 2 ppl, its important to trust each other, be honest and understanding.

    The presence of these qualities makes the relationship better. Their absense does'nt kill the relationship (being loyal 'n reciprocating ones love are pre-requisites).

    9)I really don't think so.

    k..the Q for me
    This is the way I look at the 2 words.

    Pre-requisite= This is required to start the relationship.

    Condition=This could be anything that is required to keep it going.

    I would’nt brand conversational skills as a pre-requisite. I definitely would brand loyalty as one.

    You might ask me what happens if one of the ‘pre-requisites’(as I call them), suddenly is’nt met by the person concerned (after the relationship is on). If that happens, then the relationship dies away. In my opinion, this is very rare if one knows what to look for as a pre-requisite. Its only when ppl look for the wrong things that they meet with disappointments.

    I have nothing more to say!

    Hope u have a "love"ly day too Eroteme.

    ReplyDelete
  14. [Love is an emotion]..Factual mistake I think...Love is not an emotion...Love is a feeling...Emotions are manifestations of your feelings...when you can find the reasons for the manifestations, you cannot find reasons for feelings..(take one or two)...It would be like asking to define a "charge"(as in +ive or -ive)...U can only feel it....understand it...U can say what are its properties, how all it would manifest, but u cant define it..

    [I think that when someone says that "I love someone" I think the person should know why]
    What you assume here is that Love is a decision....Need not be...say for example, only when I need to marry a person after I have loved him/her should I ask this question...not for loving him/her perse...Jus because you cant marry him/her doesnt desist you from loving him/her....does it???

    [Each individual needs to know why one loves and be able to put it down in words.]
    Not necessarily...as I told, this is possible only when there is need to be a decision...then it reduces love to a mere game of calculation...Love isn't calculation...Say..why do I need to Love my parents...may be if I go by your logic, I should say, coz she gave birth to me...but then a pure rationalist would ask, isn't it for her pleasure...why should I love someone, who did nothing with me in mind, but for her pleasure and satisfaction(social, personal, egoistical n anything)..why should I love my father??...coz he gives me food, clothes, shelter, and money...so why dont you go and love a bank manager...or is it because, my father has all these qualities...like he is tall, handsome, patient, and whatever...so, do I mean to say, there is a unique personality in this world like my father??? Going by your logic, I should Love anyone with these "Properties"(can be both physical and emotional)...sure I should love a person who has done plastic surgery to look live my father???...
    Love isnt jus a game, where u weigh your options and decide on something...Love is not a decision...Love is a feeling...What you do after Loving a person might be a decision and you need to ask these questions...but to Love perse...its jus I love..that's it..

    BTW, I came here from Renuka's blog...Nice to have seen this post...

    ReplyDelete
  15. My god! that was one stormy conversation.I must admit you guys went too serious about blogging and love.But i agree with u when u say that u should know why u love a person.

    ReplyDelete
  16. My god! that was one stormy conversation.I must admit you guys went too serious about blogging and love.But i agree with u when u say that u should know why u love a person.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 1. How different is Love from any other emotion? Nearly all emotions need an "I" and an object (usu. a human)

    Answer

    . There is an origin for several things in us at different parts of our being - thoughts belong to the mind, emotions like love, tenderness, selfless service, caring, from the heart centre, vital reactions like anger, jealousy, sexual desire are felt originating from the solar plexus region. So your putting anger and love under one caption as emotions is faulty. Love has its origin on a deeper seat in us as compared to anger.

    . Love neednt have a subject or an object. Wait a sec - dont call the men in white coats yet! - It is highly experiencable that one feels immersed in an ocean of feeling surrounding a person, where he doesn't feel that HE is feeling it himself, so much as being inside that ocean quite helplessly with no subject or object.

    . Even when there is a subject that subject can experience a love without a specific object. Many saints feel a universal love all pervading , with millions of objects maybe , but no specific object.

    So the I and you can be dispensable. It is possible. Love, anger, jealousy are independant forces looking for vessels as it were to dwell in them.

    2. Why do practical elements creep into love as time passes by?

    . Life involves everything all the time, Eroteme - practial, mundane issues, thoughts, emotions, work, friends, colleagues, work, hobbies - you name it. Now in the initial stages of love, the mundane is being looked after by say your separate home/parents/cooks/servants etc, and her mundane stuff by her counterparts.

    So you are saved the immediate shock of handling practical stuff by the buffer zone of your two homes. But you cannot be immature enough to think that the same will continue after you have your own home together.

    Just as there is a common sensical way of handling practical issues before you and the girl get together the same rules of common sensical handling of practicality should be used - what's the problem? Everything boils down to a constant equilibrium shift of focus time and again, now the sweet nothings, now serious things, now the list for maida and sugar, now it is plato and Michelangelo - what is the problem?

    3. Would you still love a person who doesn't respect you or love you in return?

    . I could. You could. But more imptly I do, you do all the time - this is because in ANY RELATIONSHIP THE EQUATIONS ARE ALWAYS LOPSIDED - it is not as though each person loves exactly the same quantity as the other person; one always loves more, always will be hurt more, always has more at stake. So it is not a big question at all.

    Whether it is a mother-child relationship or sister-sister one everywhere this is the truth, and second the imbalance anyway is there, the person who loves more always gives more and is always in a position to feel a low self esteem.

    There is no solution to this because this is true of the next relationship she/he might enter into and the next and the next..So? Does that answer yr qs?

    4. Why do people say that it hurts when someone you "love" leaves them? If love is virtuous and unconditional and a mystery and whatever you will, why should it cause pain?

    . Always a refined person is very sensitive too, is affected by the smallest things - good things and bad things; every lover is as though when he is in love extra thin-skinned, things affect more and deeply and sharply and strongly than before. Especially where the beloved is concerned.

    When good things leave one, we are the harmed party. A very mature yogi type might be detached to the exit of a lover; but the fact remains that there is harm done, when a good thing dies. For example, when a house is destroyed in a flood, there is harm done to the boy who lived in it. He can be detached and calmly look for another shelter etc. But the harm is done. The hurt is always there.

    Our soul wants beauty, perfection, love, refinement, and is hurt when it gets none of these. And a person closer to his soul has a greater need for all these as against someone who is caught in his own denser nature such as how to beat up a policeman or whatever.

    Hence hurt or a deep unbearable sorrow is very natural to the soul and heart of man,when he loses his love. Why the wonder at something so logical?

    5. Would you disagree that an individual can love more than one person?

    . The closer a person lives to his soul, or his true individuality, the starker and more clear or even rigid his requirements from his partner becomes. I have written a post called "And the heart stays lonely.." in the Url

    http://parvativetri.blogspot.com/2005/10/and-heart-stays-lonely_19.html

    I dont know - too much dosage of spirituality maybe, but I couldnt help it..

    Anyway, a person with a strong individuality knows exactly what he wants, and this leads him to only that person who fits him to a T. And since no two people are alike, to the individual with a concrete individuality there will be only one person.

    Otherwise anyone will do - as and when he changes his own stance and personality.

    When I keep changing my loves also will do so. When I am totally living in my true individuality then there is no need to change in my core of being, only the expression of my truth will take different forms such as in work, in love, in thought etc..


    6. Is it possible to decide not to love?

    No. It is a very captivating feeling, very sweet, very tender, very lovely, very wonderful and overpowering - why would anyone want to decide not to love?

    But yes - one can decide not to do anything about it, one can decide not to express it, not to give form to it, if there are familial, practical, societal considerations involved that one doesnt have the inclination nor the courage to flout.

    But nobody in their right mind will say no to actual loving - for that period whether for 5 minutes or a life time, whether love is unrequited or unilateral, whether the two get together or not, noone says no to FEELING IT. It is the only chance to experience True and pure heaven on EArth..

    7. Is having a reason for things inappropriate? Is going into the mind to find out why one is angry or why one is jealous or why one is in love, a destructive or degenerative or an unacceptable process?

    You can do it - but it is independant of actually loving. It is just an appendage, a useless one, if it pleases you do it; talk away, reason away, rationalise away - ALL OF THAT IS BESIDE THE POINT. As I told you in my previous answer, all this is not connected to LOVE. ALL THIS IS CONNECTED TO EXPRESSING, FULFILLING LOVE. The practical aspects of manifesting the love in human society.

    Otherwise Love is quite independant of everything except the lover and the beloved and what they feel of its sweetness, of its power and passion. The rest is moot. Except for the Bania in us.

    8. If one can love unconditionally, why does one hold great importance for loyalty, honesty, trust, understanding etc.?

    These ingredients are not mutually exclusive to loving unconditionally. When I love, automatically I am loyal, I cannot see beyond him/her, where is the qs of infidelity, you throw a thousand men in front of me, only he matters or only she matters, what do I have to lie for to my love? About what whom why ? I just love only him - where are the others in the story? Honesty, trust, understanding they automatically are there when I am in love, arent they? Dont you see it?

    My focus is she, I understand her like breathing in and breathing out, without words, without having to be told what she is. And even if words are used, so what - all is only he and she?

    9. Is love an interplay of images created by the fecundity of the mind?

    When I am in love there are no images, no most fecund mind cannot give me that feeling; the best imagination cannot give you that experience.

    When the wind is blowing in your face while you are riding a horse, do you think that the wildest imagination could have sculpted out the feeling for you before you had ever experienced it? Or even after the experience of the wind, when you remember it, is it anywhere close to the actual wind itself? NEVER. SAME WITH LOVE TOO. It is an experience of a different dimension to imagination, thoughts or feelings. People who have experienced it will tell you that its is a divine feeling, out of the world experience.

    As for you -What a lot of nonsense you assiduously spill out of your pen, E? - God knows what you are babbling about anyway..."interplay of images created by the fecundity of the mind INDEED!!!!"

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous10:04 AM

    Parvati's comments enlighten more than your post that entertains more.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete