Previous Page «

To dismiss something because it seems obvious has been the source of many grievous errors even in the most concrete disciplines.

Principle of Love in Love


I mean to discuss love, not as a personal feeling so much, but as an aspect of the world and its function. It’s a very pervasive principle, but as most people know it, it seems to be as much a source of grief as of support in this life. I will offer that the idea of love as a source of grief is confusing, and basically untrue.

What is love that it is so very important? Our young can die from the lack of it, our adults will kill for it, and even our spiritual leaders have supposedly died for it. Yet do we as a society actually understand love? We often describe the transitory aspects of love, and say that love itself must be transitory. If so, then how and why can it endure? Why haven’t we all given up on the idea?

Because it makes us feel good? More than that, I would say it’s why we can survive at all. That we need it like air to breath.  But sort of like some people with smoking, we are often taught to accept a false front, and a mistaken idea of what love is. I have heard a very good and correct definition of love, the willingness to allow those we care about to be exactly who and where they are.

That would make love simply total acceptance? I’m not sure that’s so simple, but yes. Though it’s also no rejection of the relationship. Nothing is seen as unimportant. You don’t withdraw the caring element, you permit the facts of the relationship. You exist in the world with them, and give them as much place as you would ideally have for yourself. If anything, it’s perhaps the permission to actually be in relationship with that person as they actually are, rather than ideas of the relationship.

Love is not necessarily a relationship? I would say love is a relationship, or state of relating or being in relation, and is omnipresent. It’s the principle that puts everything in relationship, and it is the initial peace until we depart from that state. We aren’t born knowing the idea of enemy.

Then what happens? We learn it. We aren’t even born knowing the idea of stranger. We learn it.

Isn’t the concept of the enemy false? It is false, but as a society we believe it anyway.

It is possible to be born with the idea of struggle and conflict. No one is born with a clean slate? Science seems to suggest otherwise. The process of neural encoding is minimally present in a newborn.

I think it is conditioning. We learn to judge, and not to love fully? Yes, that process of judgment, and the way we teach our young. We take self preservation and make it into a world view, but defensive behaviour doesn’t serve self preservation, only love does.

To love to get love, which is not love? Yes, loving to obtain anything is not love. It’s an abstract and calculated action. Love is our nature.  When a child is first able to say mine, adults judge this as the manifestation of greed when insights suggest it’s the first realization of connection. That there is the possible option of connection and receiving love.

Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.

Travis Saunders
Dragon Intuitive


If you enjoyed this page:
Keep Reading »

Your Insight on “Principle of Love”

  1. Kimberley Murphy

    Love is a wonderful thing

Leave Your Insight