"Unconditional Love" is a phrase which probably entered the English language during late twentieth century. This was the time when community structures were breaking down due to increases in state-sponsored welfare, policing and social security, chaos in family institutions, and evolving telecommunications technology. The process must have started with the industrial revolution which led to the transition from a joint family to a nuclear family.
It was getting harder to have multiple people in one's daily life who loved one as a family member, so the demands of love started to get centered around only one person (usually one's spouse). And it is a tall order for one person to love another all the time with the same intensity. So when that love/validation was diminished, the love-hungry person felt a vacuum, a feeling of emptiness. The lover's love felt non-fulfilling or somehow less than the ideal of love.
Love/validation is like a IV drip. When it stops, there is a pang. The pang demands that the supply be re-started. That there must not be any reason to stop the supply. That otherwise, the supply is conditional, not true, not altruistic enough, and so on.
Therefore the demand for unconditional, continuous, love.
It can be justifiably considered a power tactic. The politics involved in "love me no matter how I treat you" is not too involved. One is expecting a certain emotion in the other to continue while oneself is vulnerable to vagaries of mood and attitude. If oneself is irritable and unloving at times, it is to be expected that the other, being a human being, will also have these phases.
"Love" is a not just an abstraction. It must show itself in one's interactions. If the interactions are unloving, claims of "love" and demands of "unconditional love" from the other will feel half-baked.
Gurus are fond of saying that they love the disciple's/seeker's "soul" (his/her real self), while actively denigrating/bullying the reality of the seeker's body/mind. The seeker takes all kind of abuse because he is taken in by the guru's subterfuge. The guru undermines the seeker's trust/faith in himself and asks him to believe in a higher form of love, which is not targeted at the body/mind. The guru calls the loves of the body/mind as "dirty" loves, while the love of the seeker's soul by the guru is considered "divine". If the seeker doesn't understand this love, the guru can always claim that the seeker is not yet at that plane of understanding. After all, the guru is the guru and the seeker is the seeker.
In normal relationships, this spiritual term has entered to the peril of individuals. Love is always conditional otherwise it will not be specific. If a man loves a woman, then ab initio his love is conditional on the gender of the other person. The woman must have been found lovable by him. In a way it should be found very insulting by the woman if the man claims that he loves her unconditionally. That means that he loves nothing specifically in or about her, but is generally a loving person who has happened to come across her in life and who is now flexing his spiritual muscle by loving her "unconditionally".
All human love is conditional. Either through kinship, or through reciprocity, or through expectation, or through validation, or through lust, or through pity, or through fear, ...
If a love is not conditional, then it is more akin to "compassion". Which is a bit condescending, if you really look into it. Compassion immediately sets up a hierarchy where one person has the ability to "give" more (to be more emotionally generous) than the other, who is a fallible human being and a sink for emotional energy.
Parents disown disrespectful children. Spouses divorce. Lovers separate. Siblings fight. Friends deceive and are then no longer friends. Each of these loves starts when the conditions are good, and disintegrates when the conditions are no longer satisfactory.
"Accepting" the other "fully" while in a relationship is a different thing. It means that in day to day life, one understands the humanity of the other person, and that one doesn't expect the other to be perfect all the time. Also, that one understands the idiosyncrasies and preferences of the other and doesn't try to change them. If the flaws in the other, or the cracks in a relationship, increase beyond a threshold, then obviously acceptance and love will go for a toss. But while in the relationship, it is generally good advice to accept the other person as he/she is. If that is unfeasible and one finds it possible to only live with another who completely echoes one's habits and preferences, then let there be no relationship to begin with. A relationship that starts with the hope that the other will change to be more like oneself does not have much of a chance.
To love another human being "unconditionally" can only happen if one no longer desires anything from that person, even love. But then, is it really love?
Or is it more like a God blessing his little creations?
If you ask another for unconditional love, understand that they may then love you in a very non-specific, godly way. Understand also that you are not then willing to give, but only to receive.
If you seek human love, expect conditions.
It was getting harder to have multiple people in one's daily life who loved one as a family member, so the demands of love started to get centered around only one person (usually one's spouse). And it is a tall order for one person to love another all the time with the same intensity. So when that love/validation was diminished, the love-hungry person felt a vacuum, a feeling of emptiness. The lover's love felt non-fulfilling or somehow less than the ideal of love.
Love/validation is like a IV drip. When it stops, there is a pang. The pang demands that the supply be re-started. That there must not be any reason to stop the supply. That otherwise, the supply is conditional, not true, not altruistic enough, and so on.
Therefore the demand for unconditional, continuous, love.
It can be justifiably considered a power tactic. The politics involved in "love me no matter how I treat you" is not too involved. One is expecting a certain emotion in the other to continue while oneself is vulnerable to vagaries of mood and attitude. If oneself is irritable and unloving at times, it is to be expected that the other, being a human being, will also have these phases.
"Love" is a not just an abstraction. It must show itself in one's interactions. If the interactions are unloving, claims of "love" and demands of "unconditional love" from the other will feel half-baked.
Gurus are fond of saying that they love the disciple's/seeker's "soul" (his/her real self), while actively denigrating/bullying the reality of the seeker's body/mind. The seeker takes all kind of abuse because he is taken in by the guru's subterfuge. The guru undermines the seeker's trust/faith in himself and asks him to believe in a higher form of love, which is not targeted at the body/mind. The guru calls the loves of the body/mind as "dirty" loves, while the love of the seeker's soul by the guru is considered "divine". If the seeker doesn't understand this love, the guru can always claim that the seeker is not yet at that plane of understanding. After all, the guru is the guru and the seeker is the seeker.
In normal relationships, this spiritual term has entered to the peril of individuals. Love is always conditional otherwise it will not be specific. If a man loves a woman, then ab initio his love is conditional on the gender of the other person. The woman must have been found lovable by him. In a way it should be found very insulting by the woman if the man claims that he loves her unconditionally. That means that he loves nothing specifically in or about her, but is generally a loving person who has happened to come across her in life and who is now flexing his spiritual muscle by loving her "unconditionally".
All human love is conditional. Either through kinship, or through reciprocity, or through expectation, or through validation, or through lust, or through pity, or through fear, ...
If a love is not conditional, then it is more akin to "compassion". Which is a bit condescending, if you really look into it. Compassion immediately sets up a hierarchy where one person has the ability to "give" more (to be more emotionally generous) than the other, who is a fallible human being and a sink for emotional energy.
Parents disown disrespectful children. Spouses divorce. Lovers separate. Siblings fight. Friends deceive and are then no longer friends. Each of these loves starts when the conditions are good, and disintegrates when the conditions are no longer satisfactory.
"Accepting" the other "fully" while in a relationship is a different thing. It means that in day to day life, one understands the humanity of the other person, and that one doesn't expect the other to be perfect all the time. Also, that one understands the idiosyncrasies and preferences of the other and doesn't try to change them. If the flaws in the other, or the cracks in a relationship, increase beyond a threshold, then obviously acceptance and love will go for a toss. But while in the relationship, it is generally good advice to accept the other person as he/she is. If that is unfeasible and one finds it possible to only live with another who completely echoes one's habits and preferences, then let there be no relationship to begin with. A relationship that starts with the hope that the other will change to be more like oneself does not have much of a chance.
To love another human being "unconditionally" can only happen if one no longer desires anything from that person, even love. But then, is it really love?
Or is it more like a God blessing his little creations?
If you ask another for unconditional love, understand that they may then love you in a very non-specific, godly way. Understand also that you are not then willing to give, but only to receive.
If you seek human love, expect conditions.
5 comments:
Good! Wisdom finally on horizon... those claiming unconditional love were actually stranded!! Dont you think so....
Hmm so you are writing about 'love' for a change :-)
Hi Harman,
Tarun sent me a link to your vipassana blog and I ended up exploring a whole lot of your thought provoking articles :)
I wondered about one possibility - why do you think that unconditional love can only happen if one no longer desires anything from that person ? As you stated in earlier paragraph, love is not simply an abstraction - but a series of actions ( I agree though it look me a who lot of years to realize this). If we define unconditional love to mean continue taking those actions, even if what you desire from that person may not materialize, then I believe it is certainly human love.
The example of parents loving their kids is one such example. I have not seen parents disown disrespectful children easily. Maybe when you take it to such an extreme that taking those loving actions is not humanly possible...
Warm regards,
Abhinav
Hi Harman,
Tarun sent me a link to your vipassana blog and I ended up exploring a whole lot of your thought provoking articles :)
I wondered about one possibility - why do you think that unconditional love can only happen if one no longer desires anything from that person ? As you stated in earlier paragraph, love is not simply an abstraction - but a series of actions ( I agree though it look me a who lot of years to realize this). If we define unconditional love to mean continue taking those actions, even if what you desire from that person may not materialize, then I believe it is certainly human love.
The example of parents loving their kids is one such example. I have not seen parents disown disrespectful children easily. Maybe when you take it to such an extreme that taking those loving actions is not humanly possible...
Warm regards,
Abhinav
interesting. do you like proust?
do you like montaigne?
Post a Comment