true love?

That is true. And, that is precisely what i am trying to explain.

Let me give two different examples, one from the past and one from the very present.

I am sure that all would be heard of Taj Mahal, that Emperor Shah Jahan built in the memory of her beloved life Mumtaj Mahal. But, keeping the stoty of Taj Mahal aside, i want to focus on a different aspect here.

When Mumtaj Mahal died, while giving birth to her 14th child, Shah Jahan locked himself in his room and refused to open the doors for anyone. He remained locked there for three days, completely alone, without even talking to anyone.

[b]And, when he opened the doors after three days, his hair and beard had been become completely white, while both were black when he locked himself. That was the impact of losing his love, which transferred nt only his mind but on his body too.

That is true love[/b].

The second example is merely some years old.

There was an ordinary man in the name of Dasrath Manjhi, who lived in a small village of India. There was no water facility in his village so his wife, Falguni Devi, had to climb the hill every day to fetch the water for her family. One day, she slipped there, got injured seriously and died ultimately, because she could not be taken to hospital due to the same hill. So, Dasrath decided to take the hill headon.

He literally started cutting the hill alone to make the way by hammer and chisels. People called him mad and crazy inicially but he continued. And, it is almost immpossible to believe that he continued doing so for the next 22 years, every day, without stopping. And, at alst, he successfully carved 360 feet long, 25 feet high and 30 feet wide road single handidly. He died in 2007.

Let us keep in mind here that he was a simple and totally illiterate laborer, completely unable to understand what the philosophy of love and even cannot write his name. But, seeing his wife dying, he empathazied her pain and helplessness and that encouraged him to take up such a task, that most of us cannot even dream of.

That is true love.

That is why i said that it is a rare phenmenon, though not impossible.

By the way, the famous Taj Mahal also took the same 22 years to complete.
What a coincidence!

with love,
sanjay

And, going by N, this man was certainly an Ubermensch, much like Zarathustra.

So innocent yet so special.

with love,
sanjay

Dangle out lots of money and any woman will tell you that she has true love for you.

Women worship money more than men do although all will deny this.

Sexual relationships always follow the prostitution platform. It is engrained in the female psyche. If you’re broke as a man for a woman you’re not a buyer let alone a potential one.

Yes, I’m a sexist with a negative opinion on women. Yes, I really don’t give a damn either.

If you’re offended by this post I could fucking care less.

Sanjay, I don’t have a problem to understand what you mean when you write about ‘true’ love.

To me it’s all about the term ‘true love’. I wrote in my last post that this is like a tautology to me. A tautology in grammar is a ( needless) repetition of the same sense in different words. Like ‘frozen ice’, ‘first priority’, ‘close proximity’ or ‘dry desert’. And that is what makes me say: If it’s not true, it’s not love.

I would like to know if the term true love exists in your first language. And if yes, is it expressed in one word or in two words? Is your word for ‘love’ the same word which is used in ‘true love’?

I cannot even find a proper translation for ‘true love’ into my first language.

Thanks for defining yourself and telling others also.

with love,
sanjay

Thanks for your irrelevant boring reply.

With love but mostly animosity,

Tyler Durden

Sanjay meet Tyler, Tyler Sanjay…

tyler is just a troll…

with love,
sanjay

Waaah! You hurt my feelings! :sunglasses:

ROTFLMFAO who could be offended by something so damn funny. :slight_smile:

Watz up, Joker?

Back for more? That’s true love for ya!! :-"

There is a difference in “true love” and “absolute love”.

True love is giving with no other intent but to support that which is loved, “altruism”.
Absolute love is giving only with no other intent regarding anything at all.

True love from a single source does not guarantee that such a source will keep giving. It must be bound to the loved by other means. There are ways to form such a binding, but today’s society is in the process of breaking all bonds other than Money. And there are too many ways to accomplish that task.

Absolute love lasts only as long as the amount to give lasts. If the lover is not also loved, absolute love cannot last very long. When a group of absolute lovers are arranged exactly right, they become anentropic and nothing can stop the love. That was the concept behind Jesus’ type of love. The problem has merely been that people have serious problems understanding how to arrange that.

So for the time being, you are basically right.
But such a thought will not always be right because there is a means. And it only takes one instance of it. Nature will do the rest.

That’s interesting. I cannot think of a particular word in English or German which would express such a relation.
Here, in our western societies, that feeling of ‘oneness’ becomes unpopular by overestimating individuality and making women believe that they are mainly ‘victims’ of men.
By having this special word,-milan-, well, at least you know what to look for, or what is worth working for…

And? Any suggestions how to handle that?

…stop making men and women the same; doing the same tasks, feeling the same burdens, having the same needs (only filled by a distant governance).

Men and women loved each other out of a compassion for the difference between them. They were attracted and unite in order to fill the hole left when the other wasn’t there. The BDSM world brings out that passion. But if they are identical, the hole isn’t filled, merely made larger.

Similarities in needs cause herding to be shepherded. Differences in needs cause attraction to be shared.

The concept was destroyed so that Money, Media, and Medicine could be used to control both parties, commit genocide, form a new race.

The politics has become the formative springboard for all community action. To re-differentiate would entail working through the system. It would hardly be a piece of cake for political gains to be given up easily, there would ensue a war of the sexes.

That is absolutely true.
The only reason of this present social choas is overfocusing on individualism. We are forgetting how to compromise and live in units.

It is something like annihilation in one-another as to form a new and indivisible single particle and carry on.

with love,
sanjay

The English word for it used to be “marriage”… “used to be”.

James,

I checked for the different meanings of the term Marry.

Here they are-

mar·ry 1 (măr′ē)
v. mar·ried, mar·ry·ing, mar·ries
v.tr.
1.
a. To join in marriage: They have been married for 25 years.
b. To take as a spouse: She married him two years ago.
c. To give in marriage.
2. To perform a marriage ceremony for: The rabbi married the couple.
3. To obtain by marriage: marry money.
4. Nautical To join (two ropes) end to end by interweaving their strands.
5. To unite in a close, usually permanent way: “His material marries the domestic and the exotic” (Clifton Fadiman).

marry (ˈmærɪ)
vb, -ries, -rying or -ried

  1. to take (someone as one’s husband or wife) in marriage
  2. (tr) to join or give in marriage
  3. (tr) to acquire (something) by marriage: marry money.
  4. to unite closely or intimately
  5. (sometimes foll by: up) to fit together or align (two things); join
  6. (Nautical Terms) nautical (tr)
    a. to match up (the strands) of unlaid ropes before splicing
    b. to seize (two ropes) together at intervals along their lengths

Now, looks for the colored ones. They all give the same impression of the oneness of Milan.

But, the real question is how many from the present generation know about it?

with love,
sanjay