There is an idea that seems simple, but it turns the conventional understanding of love upside down: love, if by it we mean something real that exists in and of itself, has no existence in the external world. What exists in the world is not love itself, but semblances of love, its forms, reflections, models, and effects.
A person who expects to find love as something tangible and perceptible that can be possessed or obtained is waiting for something impossible. For love, in this sense, is not a thing among things, nor an act among acts, nor a quality among qualities, nor a form among forms, nor an entity that can be grasped. Love is “nothing”; and here lies the paradox: to love true love means being able to love something that you cannot possess, touch, define, or shape.
Love Is Neither an Act nor a Word
When someone asks: What do I do to you in true love? The answer, according to this conception, is: I do nothing to you.
Because every act added to love turns it into something else. Every definition, shaping, possession, request, or condition transforms love into a form of need.
There may be acts that we call love, words that we call love, and relationships that we call love, but none of these is love itself. They are forms or reflections of it.
Therefore, what a person sometimes feels as a result of doing nothing may be closer to love than all the actions they have become accustomed to calling love.
Love does not need an act in order to exist; rather, attempting to do something “for the sake of love” may be evidence that a person is treating love as an external form that they want to reach.
Love and Absolute Self-Sufficiency
Love, according to this conception, is self-sufficient and indivisible: it cannot be divided, does not blend with anything else, and does not need a partner in order to be what it is.
Whatever enters into a mixture, consists of several elements, and depends on conditions, relationships, and counterparts is not love itself, but something else.
Therefore, true love cannot be a collection of components: it does not have two, three, four, or five pillars. It is not a composite.
When it becomes mixed with things resembling it, something else appears: attachment, greed, revenge, contempt, domination, arrogance, submission, or the desire to possess.
These things may be reflected forms of love, but they are not love itself.
The person who wants to possess another does not want love; they want something external. The person who wants to obtain love as property has turned love into a thing. And the person who imposes many conditions in order to love or be loved has already entered the realm of need.
Why Does Love Not Appear in the External World?
The external world is a world of multiplicity and mixture. It contains things, relationships, bodies, actions, qualities, and boundaries.
Love, in this sense, does not emerge into the external world as an independent thing; because its emergence turns it into a form, and what appears externally is not love itself, but a reflection of it.
Therefore, we can say: beings are forms of love, but they are not love.
The person who says, “I am a reflection of love,” is simultaneously saying, “I am not love.” Because they are a form, while love is not a form.
Here the fundamental idea emerges: love has no form, whereas everything we see in the world has a form.
Beings as Reflections
If beings are reflections, then every being reflects love differently. But a reflection is never the original.
Reflected consciousness is the consciousness that sees the world through problems. When it sees a problem, it attempts to create a solution for it, and life then becomes an entire system of problems and solutions.
Thus, a person becomes trapped in an endless cycle: a problem leads to a solution, the solution produces another problem, and the new problem requires another relationship or another action, and so the process continues.
But if the origin of the problem is this reflected consciousness itself, then the continued search for solutions may actually mean the continuation of the problem.
The Problem as the Opposite of Self-Sufficiency
True love, according to this view, has no problem.
If there is a problem that must be solved in order for love to continue, then the problem is not within love, but within whatever has become mixed with love.
A relationship filled with problems is not a relationship filled with love; rather, it is a relationship that reveals an absence of love.
It is this absence that drives a person toward possession, toward seeking a counterpart, toward demanding more, toward imposing conditions, and toward building relationships based on need.
From here we can understand the abundance of problems in human life: the greater the need, the greater the friction; the greater the friction, the greater the conditions; and the greater the conditions, the greater the problems.
The Body and the Centers of Problems
Even the body, according to this conception, can be viewed as a collection of centers that deal with problems.
The digestive system, for example, creates the need for food and then seeks a solution to it. Breathing imposes a need for air. The rest of the bodily systems operate within a network of endless needs.
Thus, a human being becomes as though surrounded by centers that create a problem and then search for its solution.
The problem is therefore no longer merely something external; it becomes part of the very mode of existence of the being.
Thus, whoever created the problems, or from whom this mode of existence based on need originated, is in conflict with self-sufficiency, unity, and pure integration.
Relationships as a Result of Need
Every relationship, according to this conception, arises when there is a need.
If a person needs a baker, a relationship with the baker arises. If they need a butcher, a relationship with the butcher arises. If they need vegetables, a relationship with the vegetable seller arises.
The same applies to human relationships.
The more needs there are, the more relationships there are. The more relationships there are, the greater the mixture. And the greater the mixture, the farther a person moves from the self-sufficiency that needs nothing external to itself.
Thus, relationships become, in their essence, a reflection of the degree of need within a person.
The Human Being and Their Relationship with Themselves
From here we arrive at the relationship a person has with themselves.
If a person cannot meet themselves except through an intermediary, or needs another person in order to understand themselves, or constantly needs the opinions of others to know what to do, this means that there is a wall between them and themselves.
A person who can remain alone and communicate with themselves without an intermediary does not need such a multitude of relationships in order to know themselves.
But the person who cannot remain with themselves constantly searches for another person to distract them from themselves.
Thus, the need for others can become a measure of the need for oneself: the less capable a person is of communicating with themselves, the greater their need to communicate with others.
Love Needs No Intermediary
If two people truly love each other, why must they necessarily need something third in order to prove that love?
Why must love need a society, an institution, conditions, possession, children, or social roles in order to become real?
If two people are capable of sitting together alone, without needing anything else, that may be closer to love than everything added to the relationship from the outside.
Excess may conceal the original.
The more elements we add to a relationship, the greater the possibility that the relationship itself will become a veil between the human being and love.
Children and the Need for Dependence
The idea of dependence becomes clearer in children.
A child cannot initially depend entirely on themselves. They need someone to feed them, protect them, help them cross the road, reassure them, and tell them what to do.
Therefore, the child represents a clear image of the need for the external world.
A child walking alone in an isolated place causes concern, because a child is not normally capable of complete self-reliance.
But as a person's awareness of themselves increases, their dependence on this external support decreases.
From here comes the concept of “childlike love”: it is a love based on need, fear, greed, and dependence, and therefore it is not love in the self-sufficient sense, but rather a form of the need for love.
Is Marriage a Continuation of Love or a Continuation of the Problem?
If love needs no counterpart, why do two people who love each other need more and more?
Why do they need endless conditions?
I want this from you, and you want that from me. I impose this condition, and you impose that condition.
Thus, the relationship becomes a network of conditions.
The problem is that all conditions cannot be fulfilled, because a person themselves cannot conform perfectly to the measuring standard imposed by another.
At this point, boundaries and barriers begin to increase, and each side becomes more extreme in their role.
The woman's extremity in her femininity may drive the man toward greater extremity in his masculinity, and the man's extremity in his masculinity drives the other toward greater extremity, so the distance expands instead of narrowing.
Attachment as the Fuel of Relationships
Attachment, according to this conception, is not love, but a problem.
The attached person constantly needs the other because they cannot be self-sufficient.
Relationships based on attachment require fuel to maintain them, and that fuel is often the problems themselves.
Therefore, a relationship in which there are no problems may be difficult for some people to maintain, because they have become accustomed to conflict being what keeps the relationship alive.
Thus, the problem becomes fuel for attachment, and attachment becomes fuel for the relationship.
Sex and Reproduction
From here comes the view of the reproductive system as a producer of further problems.
Reproduction brings a new being into existence who needs dependence, care, food, protection, education, relationships, and other things.
Then it is said that life without children has no meaning, just as it is said that life without problems has no meaning.
But this idea, according to this conception, reveals something important: the continuation of social life may be connected to the continued production of problems.
The problem does not end because the continuation of the system itself is based on the continuation of need.
A World That Makes Love Difficult and Hatred Easy
In the end, the contemporary world can be viewed as a world that makes certain forms of hatred easier than the practice of love.
Spreading hatred is easy, while pure love is difficult.
Because hatred can find an object to attach itself to and can create an enemy for itself, whereas love, if it is nothing and possesses no specific object, needs neither an enemy nor a counterpart.
Thus, according to this conception, the world becomes a “fallen” world in terms of its ability to practice self-sufficient love.
People possess distorted models of love and believe they are practicing love, while in reality they are practicing possession, need, attachment, control, or fear.
Do Not Adopt the Problems of Others
One of the most important practical consequences of this conception is: do not carry a problem that is not your problem.
If someone comes to you with their problem, that does not mean that you are required to carry it.
You can help them without necessarily making their problem part of your existence.
Constantly adopting the problems of others gradually turns a person into a carrier of problems, until their own existence becomes based on carrying what does not belong to them.
You can simply say: This is your problem, and I do not own it.
This is not cruelty; it is a refusal to turn human life into a repository for the problems of others.
Perfection and Sensitivity to Increase and Decrease
When a person feels that they possess nothing, they may reach a state of feeling complete, because they are not looking for anything to add to themselves or anything to subtract from themselves.
But the person who feels deficient is always searching for something to increase them, while the person who feels excessive is always afraid of what might diminish them.
Thus, relationships turn into calculations: this diminishes me, this increases me, this completes me, and this compensates for me.
But self-sufficient love does not operate this way.
It does not say: Give me something so that I may become complete.
Nor does it say: Take something from me so that you may become complete.
It does nothing at all.
To Love Without Hating
From here comes a simple idea: there is no need to hate someone who does not love you.
If someone hates you, that is their problem.
Why do you need to hate them in return for their hatred?
You can say: I do not hate you, and at the same time I do not need you.
You can leave the other person to what they want, and leave yourself to what you want.
Love does not mean forcing another person to love you, just as another person's failure to love you does not require you to hate them.
Love as “Nothing”
In the end, everything returns to the starting point.
True love is not something you can obtain, nor something you can possess, nor something to which you can assign a final definition.
It has no image, no form, no counterpart, no partner, no conditions, no pillars, and no intermediary.
What we see in the world are forms of love, its reflections, and its semblances, but love itself does not appear as an independent thing in the external world.
Therefore, the person who wants to love love should not search for something to hold in their hand.
Perhaps, instead, they should abandon everything they want to add to love.
Possession.
Conditions.
Reciprocity.
Attachment.
Fear.
Need.
Problems.
Only then does the final paradox emerge: love is not something we possess; rather, it is the absence of everything that prevents us from being with it without expecting anything in return.
Love neither increases you nor diminishes you.
It does not need to be performed.
It does not need to be explained.
It does not need to be proven.
It does not need to be possessed.
It is, in this conception, self-sufficiency itself: something that cannot become a thing, cannot mix with anything, and cannot become a form, because once it becomes a form, it has become something else.
Therefore, the statement “love is nothing” is not so much a denial of love as it is a denial of every form we believe to be love.
The more we try to turn love into something, the farther we move away from it.
And the more we abandon the desire to possess it, the closer we come to its meaning.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment