Love

A few days back I saw the movie Wall-E. So much of human nature was put on to the robots, that it made me think if anyone can really take a movie without putting human nature on non-human characters. I have seen so many movies with non-human characters like robots, animals, aliens, ghosts and cars. One thing common in all these is that human strengths, weaknesses and values are put on the top of these characters. This happens even in documentaries of National Geographic, Discovery and BBC. Is it not possible for humans to see things as they are? Is it not possible to see animals from their own perspective? It is a different question if we really want to do that. Though the characters in a movie may be non-human, the movie is made for humans to watch and so the intention is to appeal to the human mind.

Another thing that puts me off is the obsession in all movies about the relationship between a male and a female. Even cars and robots are not spared. In Wall-E for example, gestures like holding hands are glorified so much that it makes one laugh at the obsession of the story-writer. This total misconception of “love” is almost universal.

The Upanisads don’t mince any words or try to cover the corpse with flowers. They tell the naked truth “It is not for others that they are loved. But for the self. It is not for the sake of the husband that the husband is loved, but for the self. It is not for the sake of the wife that the wife is loved, but for the self. It is not for the sake of the children that the children are loved, but for the self. It is not for the sake of wealth that wealth is loved, but for the self.” This may sound very selfish, but this is the fact.

We love things, people, places or incidents because of two reasons. Either they give us happiness or they are instrumental in making something give us happiness. We have defined an entity called “me”. And whatever brings happiness to that “me” is “lovable”. This truth may not be palatable, but think deep and you will find it to be the fact. The urge to love is nothing but the urge to be happy.

Then, is there nothing called “true love”? There is. The definition of “me” is what expands. When I identify myself with the body and the senses, I am selfish. When I expand my identity to include my family and friends, then I am less selfish. As I expand my identity more and more to include more and more people, I become more and more unselfish. The definition of “love” remains the same. But the definition of “me” is what changes.

“Love” between a male and female arises because of identification with the biological entity. To identify with the body and the senses is the narrowest definition of “me”. Thus, it is one of the most selfish actions of all. Unfortunately, to cover up this selfishness, which is so widely prevalent, this relationship is glorified falsely, like covering a corpse with fragrant flowers. It is just a matter of time that the flowers fade and the real smell comes out. It is better to dispose off the corpse before it is too long and wake up to the reality. Expand your identification to a wider range and enjoy “true love”.

The Upanisads finally declare, “True happiness is only in the Infinite, not in the finite.” True love is only in my identification with the whole Universe. I truly “love”, when I consider the whole Universe as myself.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Love

  1. indu says:

    Hi

    Very interesting, especially the way Love is explained with the narrowness of “me” and it being glorified because of the selfishness involved.

    Indu

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *