I Want To Know What LOVE Is
What is LOVE? Well, I am not in the authorized position to answer that question.
Anyway, in my humble opinion, LOVE is somekind of energy. It is something that you can not create nor destroy, but you could pass it through.
Man can not continuosly giving LOVE, because he is not the source. That is why, in many cases, relationships fail. The only way for man to be able to give love continuosly is by attaching himself to The Source.
On the other side, man will not be capable of holding LOVE if he’s connected to The Source. He will feel eager to transfer the LOVE he receives from The Source. So, it is sort of an automatic process.
LOVE is not kindness, nor goodness, nor attention, nor committment. LOVE is not happiness, nor sadness.
LOVE is an energy. Take it, feel it, and pass it through.
March 5th, 2007 at 4:48 am
I agree with what you write, because I used the same reasoning as you did and I came to the same conclusion as yours. But when I got that conclusion, questions popped up in my mind immediately:
-) If love is an energy, and The Source never runs out of it, what happens if we love The Source? (It certainly doesn’t change the state of The Source, and The Source does not need our humble energy..)
-) *If* (hypothetically) we have to choose between (a) loving The Source and (b) being loved by The Source, which one would we choose? (I still do not know which one I would choose, but I tend to like (b) more than (a).)
Did those questions also popped up in your head, Vid? And what are your answers? Share them with us
March 5th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Interesting questions. I wonder why they never popped up in my mind.
Anyway, I think (b) being loved by The Source is sort of an “always true” condition. The problem is, sometimes man does not open his heart to receive LOVE from The Source. In that case, man feels as if he is not loved. Actually, that is the beginning of death.
Case (a) loving The Source, is only possible if man chooses to receive LOVE at the first place. So, it requires condition (b) to be fulfilled. Action (a) loving The Source could be considered as a manner of gratitude. The result of this action is surprisingly amazing.
To answer your question, I prefer (a) loving The Source.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:16 am
You didn’t really choose between (a) and (b) Vid, because in your view:
1. (b) is always true,
2. (a) can only happen if (b) happens in the first place.
If I understand correctly, you see (a) and (b) as two different points in the same path: first (b), then (a).
Meanwhile, when I wrote “*If* (hypothetically) we have to choose between (a) and (b)”, I meant choosing only (a) [and not (b)] or only (b) [and not (a)].
Thus it is a (hypothetical) condition when (a) and (b) are not two points at the same path, but two points at two different paths.
In my view, if this hypothetical case happens, (b) is more essential, more pure, than (a), hence I prefer (b).
March 11th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
I see your point.
I have a difficulty to imagine (a) and (b) were located in a different path. So, I stay with my previous answer.
Anyway, I agree that (b) is more essential and more pure.
March 12th, 2007 at 1:22 am
I guess that’s an easier way to understand love. Btw gw kok sekost ama ade loe yaahhhhhhhhhhh:D
March 12th, 2007 at 1:22 am
I guess that’s an easier way to understand love. Btw gw kok sekost ama ade loe yaahhhhhhhhhhh:D
March 12th, 2007 at 1:22 am
I guess that’s an easier way to understand love. Btw gw kok sekost ama ade loe yaahhhhhhhhhhh:D
March 14th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
oh heueuh? dunia ini kecil rupanya ya.. Tolong jangan racunin adek gua ya.. hekhekekehe…