Unconscious battles are very deceptive. Even Lakshmana, who symbolises knowledge and wisdom, is bound by the nagpasha that Meghnadha uses. We love our children and, of course, wish them the best. But unless we can see from a little distance, do we really know what is best for them? When the child cries for ice cream, and we know it may not be good for him, we refuse, and he cries more; we somehow fall into the trap and succumb to pressure. We give in to many such situations: when the child wants a bike or a mobile, or when we use our resources to get him the best college admission through the donation route. We worry about the children if we don't know their whereabouts for even a day.
On the contrary, sometimes we take a tough stand. When the child meets a girl he likes and feels he could spend his entire life with, we suddenly resent the match. It is not from the same case. It is not from the same religion. What will society say? The match will not last. Or when the child develops his own preferences that don't match ours, we try to find fault with his decisions. "Maine to pahle hi kaha tha, but ye ladka to sunta hi nahi hai."
Can we notice something interesting here? At first, we are so attached to the child that we simply give in to his insistence. We worry about the child unnecessarily. In the second situation, we become so attached to our own belief systems that we use the child to live by them. He should marry the girl we want. He should make choices that fit our belief systems. In both cases, the ego comes first. A weak ego seeks support from the child, and that's why it feels attached to the child. A weak ego seeks support from belief systems and social validation, so it gets disturbed when its own child doesn't conform to those belief systems and social norms. Is there any love in all these situations? Probably not.
How would a loving parent handle the situations? A loving parent will not give in to a child's insistence on eating something that isn't good for them. A loving parent will not mind making decisions that support the child's overall growth, however inconvenient they may be for the parent. A loving parent will not impose his own belief systems on the child, however convinced he may be. A loving parent will not judge the choices the child makes. But isn't that distance tantamount to indifference? If the parent doesn't interfere or advise the child, isn't the relationship very cold?
I feel that a realised person isn't reactive. He is complete within and not seeking anything from the situation. That's why the fundamental difference between "ego-driven reactions" and "love-driven responses" is the locus. In the first case, the reaction will come from the ego. The ego will always try to hold on to the person or beliefs it identifies with. It will always try to control and manipulate them. Ego seeks perpetuity of the people and things with whom it is attached. It will not like to lose that child and would not mind listening to the unjustified and harmful demands of the child. It would be concerned about the child for no reason. The ego's primary drive is to avoid losing the child at all costs. The parents who try to prevent a child from marrying a girl of another caste are similarly attached to their belief systems and social image. Ego-driven reactions will always come from some inner weakness.
On the other hand, love-driven responses will come from inner completion. Not seeking anything, but just wishing that the child becomes the best version of himself. Not what I like, but what is best for him. Probably, love isn't for those attached to life's limited frame. Within that limited frame, everyone remains insecure and tries to protect or achieve something. For a solid object, its space is exclusive. Either I can keep the laptop at a particular spot on the table, or I can keep the mobile. Both can't be there at the same time. The same isn't true of gases, or of consciousness at all. The whole universe, billions of light-years wide, was once just a dot. Consciousness has no exclusive domain. All ideas and all the beings can coexist. That's why love-driven responses, which come from that understanding and realisation of the truth, have a very different locus. When our responses are driven by love, we wish everyone would explore possibilities rather than get stuck in one frame. We don't stop the children from experimenting. We encourage them to explore life from different perspectives. We are not in a hurry to settle them down because we now understand that settling down is like death.
Can such love be exclusive to a few family members? I think a loving person will always love everyone because they connect with each person at the level of consciousness. However, it will manifest most strongly between two persons who are equally free of their belief systems, mental stories, insecurities, fears, and attachments. That's why love between Krishna and Radha is so special: neither tries to bind the other with fear, insecurity, or desire. Yet both connect at the level of consciousness. Of course, Krishna also connects with Shishupal at the level of consciousness, but Shishupal is strongly influenced by his past Karma. When a cancerous cell becomes so disconnected from the body that it starts harming healthy cells, we have to disconnect it. Not because we don't love that part of the body, but because we love the whole body, and surgically removing the cancerous cells is an act of love for the whole body. Love can't be blind. Love can't be selective. Love is always holistic and always centred around the truth.
Comments