Love is not conditional-- love me, I'll love you back.
Love is not conditional-- fuck up, and I'll walk away.
Love is not conditional-- do for me, and I'll love you.
Love is not conditional-- I'll love you if...
Love is not conditional.
Love is not rational.
Love is not fair.
Love just is.
I used to think I knew what love was. And I knew aspects of it, sure. But to my mind, it was ultimately conditional, something I could control or something that could be affected by another's actions, and a replacement for things in myself I thought I didn't have. My definition of love was awkward and manipulative and tied so tightly to a language that had no words to describe it that it could never be accepted for what it truly was.
Love isn't beholden to what I think of it. Love just is.
I think I finally grok it now, and on a level I never even knew existed before, though I cannot begin to express the realization in words.
This heady realization is similar in scope and effect to the realizations that I am responsible for myself, that nobody can ever really know "me" and that I am completely alone in the world in many ways.
Daunting and heavy and disturbing, at first; but ultimately freeing and affirming.
True love is an uncontrollable force of elemental power.
You can't stop it, you can't start it, you can't change its direction.
Love just is.
Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O no! it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wandering bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come:
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.
Shakespeare; sonnet 116
My question was this: "Since all is Brahman, all is the divine radiance, how can we say 'no' to ignorance or brutality or anything?" His answer was: "For you and me, we say 'yes.'"
And that describes it indirectly (as all descriptions do).
Cryptic? Maybe so. :)