August 18, 2025

Krishna (कृष्ण) Playing the
Flute to Seven Gopis (गोपी)

Monday:
What is love? | August 18, 2025

In my view love is something that may not be clearly defined in the material domain, but what has come to be viewed as love, particularly from around the 19th century and beyond, is something completely different and has very little to do with the essence of profound and true love. First and foremost, love is something only men of ascendant rank can feel towards the creator (Yahweh) and the all, that is all things in existence, but the individualist and bourgeois form of love that has taken up the minds of modern men have nothing to do with this spiritual and divine form of love. Love in the modern sense is just an exercise in power: the man that can be said to be in love is a man of power, material power, and the man that is not in love is also seldom in material power. To feel love is to put the senses or the sexual tension between one man and his partner into a spiritual context, but this is a bastardization of the spiritual and the transcendental plane, for love may not be compartmentalized into sub-units that are deemed by the individual lust for the meat to be more worthy of consideration and feeling than that of other sub-units; it is indeed a profoundly materialistic act to love a person for the sensuality this person brings into the material domain. If a man cannot feel love for the creation in the way he feels love for his wife, he cannot be said to appreciate the creation, and he can certainly not be said to be of ascendant and noble rank, but this is indeed the common place or the common mode of being in this our era of the Kali Yuga; most men know not of this profound love for the all and the special connection he has to himself through the all, for everything happens for a reason as everything has been preordained by the creator, for such is the case with the nature of providence. Of course, from the point of view of the "natural" man, according to the humanist axiom, it would make perfect sense to feel love for only the most materially productive artifacts in his own life, for after all modern man only values the creation of ever greater quantities, but modern man has no real reason to feel love towards the qualities in his life, something that has surely created a profound cognitive dissonance in his life, but instead of investigating further, modern man simply rationalizes this and often claims that there is no need to love anything, since nothing is "objectively" worthy, or can be deemed worthy of love, yet he continues to love those artifacts and those sub-units that bring him material ease, but this can also not be said about the people such as his family that he love unconditionally and without discrimination, but this form of love has been deemed inappropriate and irrational. See, it is not the love for the thin layer called civilization that actually matter in the life of modern men, but rather his love for the qualities of life that matter, but this he fails to see, and so he goes on and continues to compartmentalize and rationalize his need for love and to give love. In a sense, love in the modern world isn't only a bastardization of the primordial quality that can be described as love, but rather a truncation of love, into something that can only be extended to certain individuals, because even if modern man can be said to love all of those ideas and all of those material artifacts, he knows that they do not bring him happiness, even though this many modern men have attempted to demonstrate that man only needs to exist in the material now. Love is not something that should be expressed as indiscriminate compassion, for love can in many ways take on wrathful means, but this is something quite foreign to the sensibilities of modern men. After all, what is Bodhicitta but the application of love in all its forms, even the wrathful forms? If something is out of place and not proper, it is surely compassionate to put that thing into its proper place? This can be said about the celestial order at large.

    Consider again the example of a father that finds out that his son's sexual "orientation" is out of tune with the celestial order, the intentions of the creator: would it be lovely and compassionate for that father to encourage his son to indulge in his deviant and harmful lifestyle? If the father truly loves his son and wants his son to be in good standing with the creator and in tune with nature so that he may be in tune with his own senses, or really so that his senses are not divergent from the source, that farther should denounce his son's corrupt and diseased lifestyle, for that is the only thing that can bring his son to heel in front of the creator and to make him become healthy and prosperous again, and in the end this is the intention of the creator (Yahweh): to allow for every living creature to live in harmony with nature and the all, and this is quite impossible in this example as long as the son remains lost on the high seas without any guidance, any beacon, that can bring him to safety on dry shores. In the aforementioned example, it can be said that the father applied love for his son with wrath: wrath not because he hates his son, but verily because he loves his son and because he knows that it is better to receive the wrath of moral judgment than to receive the wrath of the divine vengeance of nature and of nature's creator Yahweh, often in the form of ill-health and disease. Verily, disease and ill-health happens for a reason, they are part of the creation and serves the purpose of the divinely inspired boundaries of the moral domain, and those boundaries applies even in the material world; modern man's rebellion against nature and the creator is and indeed was doomed to fail from the very beginning. For a man to show indiscriminate appreciation of another man is indeed for that man to not love: love has nothing to do with appreciation always, for love is the intention to operate for the benefit of the all, that is all sentient life and the celestial order at large, and if a man only applies boundless appreciation for other men, he is not loving – he is operating for the benefit of the serpent and the serpent's propaganda. In the end, love is beyond the profane and the human, something that is hard.

Dakshina Kali (काली),
with Shiva devotedly at her foot

    In all truth, I doubt that modern men can experience any love at all, for that romantic kind of love is really a rather recent invention and the only thing romanticism does is to extol the meat, but with a thin veil over the most ugly parts of that meat, and besides in even more modern times that veil has almost been completely removed any ways. It's quite clear to me that what is being celebrated as love today is nothing but man's libido and man's victory over the material and his sense that he has conquered every corner of the world, but this is really no kind of love and that's why I regard it as unlikely that the vast majority of modern man have actually received and experience true love; romanticism was just a last ditch effort to save something sacred and divine. But there are many confusions in the modern world, and the example of love is no different: love has been made into a mass produced concept, a product and as a result there is no true love left to be experienced or understood. Even though modern men keep talking about how they value the objective and surely the material, they more than any previous generation seem to completely exist only for their own animalistic and senses and "natural" urges, something that surely can't be said about people in the distant past. To live for the hedonistic urge is indeed not love.

Reginald Drax – August 18, 2025.