Tilted Sexuality meets Tilted Philosophy
 

Well, I stumbled across this quote from ancient Zen teachings, and I thought "Boy, this could certainly go on the TFP. How many times have we told people that open communication is the foundation of a relationship?"

It seems that the same problem has been plaguing the human race for millenia...

There you have it, folks. I think Art would be proud of me. Maybe Ratbastid, too.

You really didn't need this thread for me to be proud of you.

I like that parable, though. That's love in a nutshell: the dilemma, the delicious tension between what we already know and our safety and how we're thought of, and of setting aside everything else for our heart's desire.

Nice story. I approve.

Okay, I like it better after reading ratbastid's comment. Very true... and why does that tension exist? Why is it so difficult to act on what we *know* will be safe, instead of always doubting ourselves? How does one know when love is safe enough to be trusted, solid enough to last? Or is the whole point to act as if it is always safe, no matter how it turns out in the end? To give oneself completely.

That said, when I first read the parable, I was thinking, "What if she doesn't love any of them back?" What if she's a drama queen who just wants to see if some guy has the balls to own up to his love, but then doesn't reciprocate once the drama is over? (You can see how much I trust women... good thing I like guys, eh?) :D I think the nun should have put herself out there a bit first, before asking someone to put himself on the line...

Well, first off, this shit is about a thousand years old, so I don't know if they had drama queens back then (I am guessing yes). The nun is giving a lesson to the admirer, and whether she has feelings for him has not entered the discussion yet.

I think your question about how to know when love is safe enough to be trusted shows pretty deep into your soul, Abaya. I have asked the same questions, and the answer has not always been the one I have been hoping for.

Isn't the act of professing love one of the truly powerful moments in a person's life? Why would someone hide it? If lucky enough, that love can be professed again and again, ad infinitum. I told a girl I loved her, and it felt great. I told her without caring what the response was. I didn't care if I was killed for saying it, because my life was complete... right at that moment.

I think the point is that true love is never embarassed or ashamed. It doesn't hide; but professes itself from the "mountain top."

Well, Ben, I am not sure what to say... is that a good thing or a bad thing? :)

I was tossing out a few different questions there, mostly because I have been on both sides: throwing myself completely into love, trusting it completely no matter what happened; and being cautious as hell, not wanting to make a move until the other person does so. I used to be idealistic, then I got very bitter and cynical, and now I think I'm just doing okay. Hence ktspktsp's and my relationship, going longer and stronger than anything we've known before. :D :icare:

Alright. So, I do think that one should give 100% to the relationship. (I have been trying to listen to ratbastid.) But I also think one has to be healthy about how this is done... and sometimes, it's just not healthy to do crazy-ass shit for love, over and over and over again, to the point of mania. We see it here on TFP all the time... people stuck in unhealthy patterns because they *think* they're doing the right thing, giving it all... and getting absolutely zilch in return. They're basically abusing themselves. Many of them have lost their own selves in the process. There has to be a balance.

Maybe I'm totally off-topic from the OP. But I guess, to me, why the hell didn't the nun herself announce her love for the man? Why couldn't she put herself on the line for the sake of love? Sure, maybe she was "teaching him a lesson," but that's not what you do when you love someone. You don't "test" them or "teach" them. Love itself is the teacher, not the other person. That nun was playing a game, if you ask me.

Or, conversely, why couldn't the guy just stand up and announce his love, all by himself, without the woman demanding it from him? If he TRULY loved her, he wouldn't need her to ask him for proof... and she wouldn't demand it. He would have just done it, without thinking... as you said about your own declarations, Ben. I think he was, in fact, hiding his feelings... which, as you say, is not love.

Meh, just my usual rambling... maybe I'm really just a cynic. But there's just something not right in that story. Perhaps if it was the master who knew about the love letter, and called on the writer to declare himself... that would work better for me. But to have the woman herself demand proof... nah.

EDIT: Forgive my over-analysis of this simple story. But you did put "Tilted Philosophy" up there, which calls for over-analysis :lol: hehe.

All nonsense aside, the idea of letting others know your feelings is good for relationships of all kinds. People sometimes forget how much those things (both good and bad) affect other people. Of course, it works the other way too - sometimes people think they affect people more than they do. :)

Ya know, that's romantic and all, but in my first hand experience, that's a good way to get a girl to never want to talk to you ever again.

:lol: alright, alright, ya got me there Halx. :D

But really, that kinda goes against the whole idea of the thing, right? The nun is "teaching" a lesson to the monk for not having the balls to be bold about his love... so his love is imperfect somehow, because he can't declare it without fear.

So, from the lesson of this parable, we should all be going around declaring our love, without fear of the other person not talking to us again. But we all know that almost no one does that (more than once). :) So I'd have to say that this parable is pretty damn romantic and not realistic, in that sense.

But, eh, who's keeping track. It sounds nice.

that is so beautiful.... i can't even think of anything cynical or smartassy to say- -it's just beautiful...

Kind of like that guy who proposed to his girlfriend on the big screen at a basketball game. She ran out of the staduim and left a trail of dust and smoke.

Poor guy. =(

Ok, maybe it's because I've just spent most of the afternoon reading Silver Age DC comics, which in large doses have been known to temporarily lower IQ's and impair reading ability for other materials, but I've read this like a gazillion times and I'm not sure exactly what the things being contrasted are.

"The dilemma, the delicious tension between", I'm cool with it up to that point. But it requires the contrast of two points there, and I'm not quite seeing whether there are two separate comparisons or one big one. To wit, does this mean that there is tension between A: what we know and B: our safety and additionally between C: how we're thought of and D: setting aside everything else for our heart's desire. Or is it one big comparison between A: what we already know and our safety and how we're thought of and B: setting aside everything else for our heart's desire. Or is it one big comparison between A: what we already know and our safety and B:how we're thought of, and of setting aside everything else for our heart's desire.

---------

Since I can't untangle that, I'll just respond to the parable. There are several possible lessons here.

1. Several monks privately loved her, but only one actually said so. Because he took the risk, he's the only one in line for the reward, her love in return.

2. There is a contrast between how the monk expressed his love and how the nun responded. He tried to hide it from the others, while she wanted open expression right up front. He was brave enough to risk rejection, but not public rejection. This really amounts the the same type of lesson, that you have to be willing to risk loss to make a gain, but on a different level.

Her response can be interpreted one of two ways.

A. "Embrace me now" is her way of saying she returns her love, but will only love him if their love is publicly known. Doing so in private would be to imply that there was something shameful about it.

B. She might also, rather than declaring that she returns his love, be saying that a private note isn't enough. He must first make a public declaration, and then she will entertain the idea of returning it.

If we look at the title, that should give us some clue as to the intended meaning. Is it about risk taking leading to a reward, or is it about the nature of what a loving relationship truly is?

"If You Love, Love Openly" seems to me to imply that it's the latter. It's not really love if it must be hidden. With this, I'm going with interpretation 2A: She was prepared to return his love, but only if he were prepared to take the risk of declaring it publicly.

I think it would work better as a lesson about risk taking if he had sent the love not anonymously, and she had stood and declared to the crowd as a whole, not knowing who wrote it, "If you really love me so much, come and embrace me now." However, the story makes it clear that he identified himself and she knew precisely who it was and addressed him directly in public.

So, combined with the title, it seems to be more about what love is, rather than how to find love.

Well, that's a complete muddled mess. I'm going to reread it tomorrow and see if I can make sense of it then.

Gilda

Ah, glad to know I'm not the only one who was confused by the parable. :D Thank you, Gilda, for analyzing along with me. :D

I don't know if I made this clear earlier, but I agree with Mal that BigBen (and ratbastid) expressed some beautiful stuff... :) I just didn't quite jive with the quoted parable thingy.

...hell, it's my job to analyze texts, what did you expect? :lol:

Hoist on my own linguistic petard.

I intended the second of those three: on one hand, there's what we know, our safety, and how we're thought of. On the other hand there's giving up all that for what we know in our heart is truly that which expresses ourselves.

Since 9/11 I try to tell people I love them on a regular basis. The people entering the fold of my friendship and love grows, and as the friendship starts to move a bit more into a long term relationship, I say those words,"I love you." as I part from them.

I expect nothing in return. I have no strangeness about it, but I have witnessed some of the ladies I have said it to pause to try to assess what just happened.

Most respond back affirmatively. Some silence and awkwardness. Eventually they understand.

Thank you for the clarification.

abaya: Yeah, analyzing text is what I do for a living also. It's hard to turn it off, isn't it?

Cynthetiq: I'd probably find that strange and a little off-putting. I have exactly four people I talk to regularly to whom I'll say "I love you". It comes easily to me when I love someone, but it isn't something I'll easily give away or expect outside of a very close bond. I'm not criticizing, just sharing my own reaction.

Gilda

It was a little strange at first. This was almost a phenomenon after 9/11 here in NYC. Eventually it stopped. I still carry it because I realized just how dear my friendships were. Even now I realize that I don't do it as often as I used to, JustJess and Quadro don't hear it as often as they should. But those friendships that have remained tight via phone due to distance get it at the end of each call.

I think that is why we have terms like "secret love", whatever that means...