A connection of choice

The psychological break-up of humans is too complex even for a variety of labels being attributed to a single individual. Our beings are composed of not only our circumstances but also the choices that we have made through these circumstances. When judging another, a simple background survey is drastically inadequate. By judging, I do not imply any moral connotation of good or bad, right or wrong. It is an amoral analysis of another personality in relation to your own. It is the groundwork to understanding a relationship.

So labeling is inadequate when dealing with people... especially those who have grown beyond conformism. Each human being is a unique entity. I make this statement even for the mobs. Every single person in a flock who draws his or her sense of security and belonging from that group has been subject to subtly or substantially different circumstances compared to the others and made some unique choices along the way as well. What defines him or her is not only the actions but also the reasons behind those actions.

So, am I suggesting that every human being deserves equal consideration owing to the uniqueness inherent in them? No.

I believe in connections, relationships that bloom from commonalities in fundamental feelings, beliefs, personality traits and actions. Though trying to give form to any "criteria" is not as esoteric as one would think, going by these beliefs (only) would be too dogmatic and superficial an approach to discovering the depths inherent in human behavior.

Self-love in the prime determinant of a holistic interactive process. If one is indulging in a relationship for reasons such as altruism, insecurity, domination or subversion, it will inevitably lead to a dependency syndrome where the people involved are drawing upon the strengths (or weaknesses) of each other.

Before relating to another human being, it is important to understand yourself and love who you are. It is critical to be honest with yourself about your intentions and feelings (whatever they may be).

One might think that this closes doors to that seemingly abstract concept of love. How can one be an egocentric and love another person at the same time. This will be crystal clear, if you understand the reason for loving another. We love another not for their weaknesses but their virtues, never with sympathy only with respect and understanding. Love is amongst equals in spirit. Anything else is a compromise.

Comfort in one's nakedness is another factor that determines the efficacy of a connection. When there need to be no facades and no inhibitions to a free flow of interaction, we have a true bond. "You" and "I" will never become "Us" if we aren't acquainted and comfortable with the nakedness of our beings, every virtue and every flaw.

This is when silences become blissful and not a burden. This is when a smile means more than a word. This is when a glance is enough to express an emotion.

Man is a social animal they say... Man is a dew drop I say, that requires a leaf to condense upon. Connections are not a compulsion. The dew drop always existed as vapors but could only take shape on the leaf. There are some things we learn about ourselves only in the presence of another who understands.

Unconditional love

Initially this word didn’t mean much to me. However, there are simply so many ways to look at it. The ambiguity in this topic gives it an almost mystical effect!

One way would be to contemplate over the ubiquitous mother and child relationship, unconditional in the true sense of the word. What distresses me in this case, however, is that it doesn’t matter WHO the child is. She would love him or her anyway. That makes the human being substitutable and the title of child being his or her only claim necessary to earn the mothers love.

However, unconditional emotional is a frame of mind. Unconditional bliss, for example, would be a bliss that transcends circumstances. It would be a natural state of mind similar to nirvana. One would feel bliss doing anything his or her soul heads towards.

In the 1st case, the folly was connecting the emotion to a specific person. We could, as an alternative, detach the person and simply focus on the emotion to describe the existence of an unconditional element of feeling. We could feel unconditional love not necessarily for a person in particular but towards nothing and everything. That is the only justifiable existence of this phenomenon.

Love for a particular person must necessarily take into consideration the person involved. We love someone for their virtues. It’s a unique individual we fall in love with, not a substitutable object like an empty desk in an MNC.

That particular love will never die. It remains as a part of our beings as we explore different facets of this magnificent emotion.