Shantaram has always inspired me to change the way I think. Not modify my outlook altogether, but it sure has influenced the way I thought about a few things.
Love was one of them. Always!
Somewhere in the book, it is quoted that loving someone and being in love are two different things. You can love more than one person at a time, but be in love with just one?
Imagine a situation. Let's not call it adultery. But then there is a female, who says she loves her man dearly, and there's another man who is a very important person in her life, say her best friend, or a colleague at work, with whom she gets along really well. And she says, she is in love with the man she is romantically involved with, and loves the friend whom she talks to.
Does being in love result in romantic involvement necessarily. Or one can be in love too, without any romantic involvement?
My question to the readers is
1. Can you be in love with more than one person?
2. Is romantic involvement necessary if you are in love with a person?
3. Is loving someone and being in love different?
Been a while there was an activity on the blog! So here's one.. :)
Love was one of them. Always!
Somewhere in the book, it is quoted that loving someone and being in love are two different things. You can love more than one person at a time, but be in love with just one?
Imagine a situation. Let's not call it adultery. But then there is a female, who says she loves her man dearly, and there's another man who is a very important person in her life, say her best friend, or a colleague at work, with whom she gets along really well. And she says, she is in love with the man she is romantically involved with, and loves the friend whom she talks to.
Does being in love result in romantic involvement necessarily. Or one can be in love too, without any romantic involvement?
My question to the readers is
1. Can you be in love with more than one person?
2. Is romantic involvement necessary if you are in love with a person?
3. Is loving someone and being in love different?
Been a while there was an activity on the blog! So here's one.. :)
I would like to add a dimension to your thought process here -
ReplyDeleteIf i may - if you try to separate "love" from its expression - then you can see love as it actually is.
Its the same thing basically across all domains or situation - its the expression that changes. They way you say i love you mummy and i love you doggy and i love you my darling, differs. But the love component being the same.
Love as i see is the simple realization of the fact that we are all the same - when we progressively realize we are all the same - we start to feel each other's feelings / thought.
It hurts when the one we love is hurt and their happiness becomes our happiness. Having said this how can you restrict loving only one person - i can feel the joys and tears of so many people - even those i have not met - those who are very close to me.
Not confusing this with empathy - empathy is knowing and accepting that the other feels in such or such way - but love is making that feeling your own - with no distinction.
1) To sum it all - love all. See them in you and you in them.
2) Romantic involvement is one expression of love - basic and biological factors encourage the kind of interactions which are not done with more than one partner. We can debate why only one partner in some other discussion - but taking it as a norm for this discussion. Romantically involving with more than one partner is unethical. But loving is not. Its when you confuse love itself with something else then this question arises.
I love someone as well as many more - but the interaction / dependence / expectations / expressions are defined by the relation i share with them. You cannot carry the weigth of everyone at the same time neither can you take your feeling to every door you know - thats why we need a special person next to us. Biology later takes over at times and we have conjugal meetings.
Well we have twisted this naturally simple process a lot - but it will come back to us.
3) Coming back to Shantaram - i have not personally read his books so i am not sure what he is trying to say - but i feel loving is much more fundamental than 'being in love' - as in the latter being just one of the flavours of the first.
Forgive me for hogging so much space in the comments section.
Thank you for raising such wonderful questions. This is reply seems to big but you just triggered my thoughts. There is still a lot to learn.
Keep writing such thought provoking posts. :)
No , you cannot be IN love with more than one person.
ReplyDeleteYes , you can love more than one person. ( there is a difference!)
Romantic involvement comes naturally if you are IN love with someone.
Necessary ? Well... It just goes hand-in-hand. Somewhere it strengthens the love.
YES.Loving someone and being IN love is different.
I've had a long debate with a friend who thinks its all same. In fact he questioned me whether I 'think' its different or I just know it is. That sent my thoughts in toss :P
I've been in the situation. And its hard to explain the difference :)
"You can love more than one person at a time, but be in love with just one?"
true that!
@Sunny: I totally agree with what you began your comment with!
ReplyDeleteLove, sans the expression, is what it actually is.
But unless expressed, I don"t think it gets a definition, or rather, human cognizance for that matter.
Love is a feeling, very well felt, but does it remain there. Even the inexpressive of human being, end up expressing!
The definition that you quote about love being a simple realization of the fact that we are all the same we start feeling each other's feelings.
But at one point, during this course, there is a submission of will too. Because it is very difficult to stay detached to the person and still be in love, that's probably where the problem begins.
1. Sure, I also agree that it is possible to love all, i.e. more than one person at a time
2. When do you express, then, if romantic involvement is a mode of expression? Because a mother's love for a child is expressed in a different way and that between two love in a different way.
I feel, if you are in love with someone, romantic involvement is not an essential aspect. It is one of the factors though, but not the most important one..
Talk about being romantically involved with more than one person, I sure call it unethical too.
3. I am convinced about what you say, about "loving someone" being more fundamental than "being in love". I had never thought about this aspect at all, ever. I always kept differentiating the two, not realising which needs to be effectively executed.
Thanks a ton for such a wonderful comment. I think, the comment space is all yours.. Take it :)
@Sugar Cube:
ReplyDelete1. That's a pretty clear perspective. I believe in the exact thing that you stated in the comment.
2. Yes.. I take that. And I feel, it is very essential for a relationship to give that atmosphere for romance to develop. Unless it isn"t given proper exposure (mediums of expression), it really doesn't work.
3. Agreed! :)
I was here...
ReplyDelete@_@
wow.. i got lost reading your post and the comments.. never thought love could be so complicated....
ReplyDelete@Rohit: Thanks!! :D :D
ReplyDelete@Laddu: It really is not complicated it all. I realise, the feeling in itself is simple.. Expression is tough!
I have decided to just go with the former! :)