Wanted to share this wise quote about love

Originally Posted by Snow Goose

This is really interesting I can definitely see both sides here, yes you do need to love yourself to be able to love another but there is also truth in what Tuesday is saying.

Sometimes we go through some really bad times in life, without someone there who truly loves you and shows compassion things could become really bad. If you are in a healthy and loving relationship then there is nothing bad about this, we all need a little help sometimes.

The problem stems from when we are completely attached and dependant on another, we control and possess rather than accept and encourage.

If we go down the route of being so involved in our own selves and detached from the other then it would also be impossible to have a positive relationship with another.

I see my relationship as a partnership between two individuals. Yes there are times we don't agree but we talk and compromise.

Really bad times are teaching us that we are not alone. That we need to love ourselves first. I agree during these lessons it is comforting to have help. But when help is there is it easier to ignore the lesson and latch on to outside comfort instead of finding that comfort inside or even better change the thought process leading to sadness? Change the belief that anger sadness and anxiety are a result of outside forces.

Some believe that we need to have dark experiences in order to appreciate the light.

I don't think anyone was saying those things aren't valid or needed. Just that love of self is all that is needed. (Which is not selfish) Once one loves self fully they will be more available to each moment. They will not be dwelling on past or future, Or what others think of them. They will be centered in the present. And when In the now they will actually be more available to the person that they are with. They hear everything that is said and unsaid. They will see every facial expression and pick up on all body language. They will be fully absorbed to what they are giving their attention to.

Even being fully present with your significant can be viewed as you loving them. Because you're so focused on them and the moment. But really it's a result of you loving you. Not them. And to the person being present there is no difference.

[Raziel]

Originally Posted by Tuesday

It sounds like the quote is saying that you shouldn't enjoy other people's company because you are complete on your own.

We are social creatures, we enjoy spending time with other people and that's okay. We also need other people every now and then also, and that's okay too.

Its tone reminds me of endless mirrors all looking into each other - into infinity.

The quote to me is the same as thinking about "thinking".

I comprehend what is being said but I'd wonder if the writer has actually felt love.

Love is not about owning, its about respect first & foremost. Its like the writer has observed teenagers in love instead of looking at an old married couple who are happy.

UPDATE: I just looked him up .. a sex guru .. so yeah liked orgies.
.

Originally Posted by knightoflenity

Its tone reminds me of endless mirrors all looking into each other - into infinity.

The quote to me is the same as thinking about "thinking".

I comprehend what is being said but I'd wonder if the writer has actually felt love.

Love is not about owning, its about respect first & foremost. Its like the writer has observed teenagers in love instead of looking at an old married couple who are happy.

.

Osho wouldn't have written that without experiencing true love of self.
Break down what respect is. Not the definition, what the action is..

When you truly love you. And break down all illusions of your mind on the way you will see all as yourself and when you fully love yourself, you fully love everyone else and everything else the same. is this not respecting all constantly?

And maybe osho found his truth by observing an old couple who didn't require approval from their significant, who didn't require respect. how can you require or need anything if it's already being given?

[Raziel]

Originally Posted by Badcopyinc

Osho wouldn't have written that without experiencing true love of self. And maybe osho found his truth by ..

Maybe .. unlikely though .. if it were an old married couple they would have had trust, security & complete history together.

Self "could" be interpreted as selfish.

If you believe that everything that you do is correct, wise, moral, logical etc then how can you ever be wrong?

In a relationship you have to compromise, how can two people compromise if they both believe that they are absolutely correct - but have a different idea?

These are the classic tactics of someone wanting as much booty as possible - "free love is about respecting our individuality" - yup you can do that & not partner swap.

I'm not judging - do that if you so choose but don't usurp the word love.

Just an opinion.

.

[Snow Goose]

Originally Posted by Badcopyinc

And maybe osho found his truth by observing an old couple who didn't require approval from their significant, who didn't require respect. how can you require or need anything if it's already being given?

I have no idea Osho is but I wonder if S/he was a long term single? I feel that the idea would be attractive to those that are single too. I can see why this would be important after a bad relationship/s.

Badcopy just because I'm in a relationship doesnt mean I havent been through hard times. Together we have been through the good and the bad and grown stronger together. Even in our joint birth charts it is suggested that being together will bring about difficult times in our lives.

Honestly if it wasn't for my partner I wouldn't be here writing this now. I would have probably given up :-( he gave me strength when for once in my life I could no longer be the strong one.

Originally Posted by knightoflenity

Maybe .. unlikely though .. if it were an old married couple they would have had trust, security & complete history together.

Self "could" be interpreted as selfish.

If you believe that everything that you do is correct, wise, moral, logical etc then how can you ever be wrong?

In a relationship you have to compromise, how can two people compromise if they both believe that they are absolutely correct - but have a different idea?

These are the classic tactics of someone wanting as much booty as possible - "free love is about respecting our individuality" - yup you can do that & not partner swap.

I'm not judging - do that if you so choose but don't usurp the word love.

Just an opinion.

.

Compromise is never needed. That thought is exactly that, a thought.
Compromise in a relationship means to give up a want. When you're not busy thinking about what's needed and required of the other neither party will need to compromise. As both parties will already be in agreement.

[Raziel]

Originally Posted by Snow Goose

I have no idea Osho is but I wonder if S/he was a long term single? I feel that the idea would be attractive to those that are single too. I can see why this would be important after a bad relationship/s.

Badcopy just because I'm in a relationship doesnt mean I havent been through hard times. Together we have been through the good and the bad and grown stronger together. Even in our joint birth charts it is suggested that being together will bring about difficult times in our lives.

Honestly if it wasn't for my partner I wouldn't be here writing this now. I would have probably given up :-( he gave me strength when for once in my life I could no longer be the strong one.

I say this jokingly: No - it's about finding yourself - it's all about self!

It's a clever way of saying that to be truly enlightened - you have you focus on your needs, I really don't understand where selflessness is in all this?

At least martyrs die for a cause - living for you is just selfish surely?

Maybe we are missing the point somehow?

.

[Raziel]

Originally Posted by Badcopyinc

Compromise is never needed. That thought is exactly that, a thought.
Compromise in a relationship means to give up a want. When you're not busy thinking about what's needed and required of the other neither party will need to compromise. As both parties will already be in agreement.

OMG - it's just so selfish & not plausible.

We say to children, say please & thank you - don't snatch.

But there are adults that think that giving up a want is not necessary in life?

No wonder the "self" people all fight with me - they all want theirs without giving any in return.

.

Originally Posted by knightoflenity

I say this jokingly: No - it's about finding yourself - it's all about self!

It's a clever way of saying that to be truly enlightened - you have you focus on your needs, I really don't understand where selflessness is in all this?

At least martyrs die for a cause - living for you is just selfish surely?

Maybe we are missing the point somehow?

.

So me taking care of myself is selfish?
Me learning to love myself is selfish?
Me improving myself is selfish?
Me becoming better to better help others is selfish?
I'm seeing what your getting at. but are you seeing how you viewing another improving them self as being selfish. is in itself selfish.

How can anyone truly love another if they don't first love them self.

[Snow Goose]

Originally Posted by knightoflenity

OMG - it's just so selfish & not plausible.

We say to children, say please & thank you - don't snatch.

But there are adults that think that giving up a want is not necessary in life?



.

Aw Badcopy :-( without compromise there is no relationship, just two people at war with each other.