Thursday, May 31, 2007

To Love, You Don't Need to Need

Last night, I heard that a lot of the time, "needing" our loved ones becomes greater than the love we feel for them- or we let it come before our love, and this should not be so. When we let this happen, relationships suffer, and, of course, the people in it. Think about it. Needing and loving are entirely different things. Love is a choice and love gives a choice in each moment. Loving, really loving, is liberating. Needing, instead, is incarcerating. I want to love with greater faithfulness to love's pure nature. I want to love more and need less. (All kinds of love included.)

9 comments:

Chef Pablito said...

Me too!!

Montirul said...

:)

Nelly said...

i wanna love without needing....that could be a goal right now....just to give love....good post hun :D

pOssEidO said...

muy bueno...algunas personas confunden necesidad de estar con una persona con amor...el amor no conoce barreras y se manifiesta a un punto tal que prefieres ver a tu pareja con otra persona si es que eso es lo que la hace feliz y renunciar a ella...estar en pas contigo mismo y en armonia contigo mismo te hara mejor....muy buen post

dirat said...

La necesidad y el Amor se parecen en un nivel superficial. Cuando hay amor sentimos necesidad, pero cuando hay necesidad no tiene que haber amor. Amar a alguien sin sentir la necesidad de la compañia de esa persona, también es díficil de comprender, pero es así. Si amas a alguien lo suficiente, preferirás dejarla libre si eso fuera un obstaculo.
Un abrazo fuerte.

alfonso said...

mich.....is incarcerating esa palabrita no me la dieron en before book one, la busque en internet...

randolf, estoy de acuerdo...

gracias por tus palabras....

Chelle said...

chef- me 3! jeje

mont- :P

nels- oh yah, i'm with u on that one... it's as good a time as any.. thanks :)

poss- asi es, si uno esta en paz y armonia con uno mismo, uno puede amar mejor... y amar se trata de que ayudes al otro a ser realmente feliz, no a justificar nuestros fines egoistas.

dir- si, es dificil de comprender, pero ese tipo de amor, puro y sin encadenar, SI existe. que interesante eh? eso no significa que no hayan relaciones, sino que aunque las hayan, esas personas entienden el respeto al derecho a ser de la otra persona.

alf- jajaja. la aprendi de shaggy... si, el rapero/reggae pseudo cantante, jejeje. (plop!)

who is randolf? (i don't know your real names, guys...)you think they'll tell me if i smile? :P

Anonymous said...

Even though these ideas about love and need and the rest sound so transcendent, in the end they carry the emptyness of a life lived in the fear of just being, of just feeling, is like denying yourself the right to need, to love, to live, to be human. Is to watch life from a distance while it passes you by. How many times have you suffered for not following your heart and reach out for thaT person you are attracted to, or thing you are attracted too. Life and Love are complicated as they are, why complicate it more with theories born in the illusions of spirituality.

Kind Regards,
Elyse

Chelle said...

the title says it all, "to love, you don't need to need."

the point is TO LOVE, not to stop feeling attraction, or to stop following your heart, or to stop falling in love and living all those wonderful things.

the point is that while you can live all that, you can still know that you can be happy with or without it. that even when you fully enjoy this, you know that if it should have an end, you can still be a whole and full person and go on living.

it is based on love, not fear. it is based on wholeness, not emptiness.

when you live so attached to another that you don't know how to be yourself or happy without them, IT IS THEN that you "carry the emptiness of a life lived in fear." because you're putting your happiness to depend on someone else.

the illusion is what most of us have learned to think of as "real". spirituality is the key to find out what really is.

i respect how you feel, however, and it's interesting how we all have our points of view, and that's ok.