>Here it is then…

1)Intelligence, that to me is so important that I have to begin with it. To me this obviously factors into the ability to have good conversations.

2)An open mind: I cannot Imagine loving a mind that is caught within the petty bonds of this immature society.

3)Should love art.

4)Should be able to stand conversations which carry the flavor of my blog.

5)Compassion, well obviously.

6)Innocence will be a pro.

7)Should be able to love without attachment.

8)Should be able to understand point number 7


72 thoughts on “>There

  1. >Hey, firstly, I’m sorry if this worried you that mush…it’s just meant to be a fun thing, you don’t have to think too seriously about it if you don’t want to. I read your last post only now and it does seem that the tag got you a bit tense…it wasn’t the purpose of the tag, I can assure you.Secondly, having said that, you’ve done your tag really well! Take care…:)

  2. >Not bad..At least you didn’t write something like Tristan Miller. Read his paper at Why I Will Never Have A Girlfriend Let me warn you that this paper was provided to me by vineet and after reading it you just might get depressed unless you find the fallacies in his logical process.

  3. >I hate point 7. Isn’t it too Buddhist an approach? Or is it just a guy thing? I’m a bit like Scarlett O’Hara in that regard. When I love a man, I want his body, mind and soul. Oh well!

  4. >point no 7…..sounds like u get too many forwarded mails……hence the ban on “attachment”How could u love sumone without being attached to that person?Guess that’s the point of point no 8,right?

  5. >Well, no. I *mean* not being attached.When I “love” it means not that I don’t hate. Im not talking of the love that is the opposite of hate.This is another dimension, totally.Attachment is the result of thought and hence limited.

  6. >SagarDon’t think too much. You will be depressed. If you have crush on some one or would have crush whom you think after spending some considerable time(around six months) is reliable. Just go Ahead and further you can use Mathematics to sort out your Problem

  7. >Sorry…I can’t help arguing but love without attachment just doesn’t exist. It’s inhuman and no fun at all! Why are you so desirous of something so unattainable? Maybe because your first love is already mathematics, and so you won’t let anyone or anything interfere with that.

  8. >There is nothing to argue.The ‘fun’ that you are talking about is an accepted way of life, something that humans have presumed they cannot get rid of. Something that cannot end, hence they have beautified it. That is why it is called human.Now I personally dont enjoy such a state of my mind for the same reasons of insecurity, my brain needs security to function sanely and hence itlooks for it(security) in things like love attachment,family, friends, my career, my abilities,my status and the rest of it.And in this there is complete insecurity, there is no security in clinging, to your girlfriend as yours you job you status, opinions etc.(psychologically, I mean) Once you realize this then there is complete death of conflict (fun) and freedom.P.S:I am not diserious of anything, I have just answered a tag! :)Also this has become the most commented post on the blog!

  9. >”I’m looking for someone who will love me, understand me for who I am, not merely for convieniance. If the love is about the security, then is it really me you love? Would you love me if you were secure? If there were no strings attatched?”PS Sagar, I see you’ve removed the first three comments on this post? Slimming more than just your tummy? or was the reason more sinister?

  10. >Seriously Sagar! I fear you are a bit out of form. A man of your reasoning powers cannot expect to label love with attachment as ‘clinging’ and get away with it! I think now, that it is you who do not understand pt. 7. Unless you feel a certain attachment to a person, your love for him/her will be exactly the same as the love you benevolently bestow upon all mankind (if you do such a thing?). And when I say attachment, I speak here of that fear of loss of this love, not of insecurity. I don’t mean that you should be defined by those you love. And finally, I DID NOT mean that it is fun because I cannot get rid of it. Now you’re just being an Antigoat. I genuinely feel that it is not possible to love without attachment. I think that’s all for now.

  11. >Chit~”Would you love me if you were secure? ” why not?Dhun~”I speak here of that fear of loss of this love, not of insecurity.”This is the whole crux, The fear!I wish to end that!”And finally, I DID NOT mean that it is fun because I cannot get rid of it. “Please see this dhun, this is an insight im trying to convey to you, I dont see any point in suffering the pain that is involved in the process of your “love”, I know that it can end (the pain) and I can still lead a sane normal life.Chitrak~”PS Sagar, I see you’ve removed the first three comments on this post? Slimming more than just your tummy? or was the reason more sinister?”I have not removed any comments from this post!

  12. >No pain no gain. If you cannot lose something, you will not value it. If there is no attachment there is no interest and hence you cannot claim to care.

  13. >dhun~”No pain no gain”There is no gain I seek.”If there is no attachment there is no interest and hence you cannot claim to care.”This is not true, if you are terribly intrested then there is only interest, no attachment.Let me illustrate this ;If you look at a flower and it mesmerises your senses then the very first moment of you seeing the flower with it’s full colour all the veins of the flower and the dew on its petals when there is intense observation and no thought, just observation.I am not asking you to stop caring, Im saying that if you look at you boyfriend without the attachment with all the detail without your longing for him understand his mind his body and his soul with all the interest and complete silence (and hence no wanting) then it is loving him. Im not asking you not to help him when he is in trouble, Im asking you to help him like you would help yourself when you are being chased by a tiger, thoughtlessly, intelligently. You see there is very little thought involved here and all love.

  14. >True. Interest can be without attachment, but not the other way around. Besides love is not like admiring a beautiful flower from a distance. Alot of things accompany a relationship. You love your parents, and you are attached to them. That is why you do things you may not otherwise do. Nothing is without attachment. If you are looking for something that is free from attachment, then not being attached is your attachment.

  15. >It’s like you said. A love without attachment is simply an appreciation and not a love at all. If money grew on trees it would have no value. Similarly, you would have no value of a love if you were not attached!

  16. >Good Lord! You two should be in parliament!”Is it possible to find some one who you would trully enjoy being with forever? Most of the time, love stems from a need to hold on to someone, rather than from someone you want to hold on to. Otherwise it is just hopping from person to person while the fun is still there, is fresh. Can someone be fun forever? If you find someone who is, and for whom you are( and in my case someone not put off by overanalysis), then, i believe, you have found true love. Someone your with ’cause you want to, and who you are not afraid of being with till the metaphorical sun has set.”Now in a totally Chirag-esque move, I’ll remind you that if you’re afraid of eating up Sagar’s blog-space, you can always move this conversation to our batch site. AT LEAST SOMEONE WILL USE IT!

  17. >Duun~”Besides love is not like admiring a beautiful flower from a distance.”There is no distance between the flower and you if you are really looking at it, without memory, without prejudice, without desire. Only your senses.There is no distance at all, you are the flower and the flower is you.”If you are looking for something that is free from attachment, then not being attached is your attachment.”I am not looking for any thingI *am* that thing. And these are the properties she should preferably have, it’s okay if she dosen’t.

  18. >Ultimately if you fall in love i doubt you will know the meaning of attachment or even care for that matter. I would consider taking leave of your senses a very important part of falling in love and much looked forward to.

  19. >I think Sagar, that you’re just reproducing what you read in those philosophy manuals you borrowed from Rahul. Anyway, I think Chinchaguk is right, whoever he/she is. Sagar:There is no distance between the flower and you if you are really looking at it, without memory, without prejudice, without desire. Only your senses.There is no distance at all, you are the flower and the flower is you.What the hell are you talking about!!! Sadly enough, I’m NOT a flower! You on the other hand, might be the next Deepak Chopra. God help us!

  20. >ok is this why nobody reads my blog?? i am priyanka… people dont even know me.. my other friend has blocked my email address becasue she dint recognise smoldee(which is me too). anyway about that flower thing sagar you better move the flowers petals when you become the flower.. that is the difference betwen being the flower and thinking you are the flower. if you say without prejudices blah blah… then you cannot be talking from your mind.. you msut know that the nature of the mind is such.these thoughts are all fine but is it true in its entirity.. as i said when you are truly one with the flower you will be the flower you will feel the wind on it.. and after such a feeling of oneness you wont be able to contain it only to the flower you will extend it to the universe until you ARE everything.. you will not know what loneliness or being alone is like… unconditonal love and all just follow soon you will be enlightened exuding your energy amongst all. It is the difference between thinking you are the flower and being the flower.. and i hope you realise nobody cares wether you are tired hehehhe

  21. >Where do you guys get this stuff!?!! It’s so totally over the top! I mean, what is this rot about being flowers!!! You sound like one of those insane people who write self-help books, only worse! I fear I am one of those earthy type of people who cannot fathom this spiritual bilge.

  22. >Scooby~click on it to find out.Dhun~I dont know what priyanka is saying,and I think I have been a bit too fast, all Ive said here is not spiritual or anything that relates to a philosophy.Please allow me to say this again,Attachment leads to fear (and you agree to this)All im saying is that it is possible to love(live) without fear. If the person you love is lost upon you there is pain tremendous pain for he was the perfume of you life and there are so many things you identify with him and they all remind you of him. It is possible to live without this pain and conflict.Is it so difficult?

  23. >You could go ahead and ask me how.See this, If im afraid of loosing my beloved, then How do I react? Do I not tell myself not to be silly, or to have faith in my own love? We have tried that before have we not, and it has not helped because we still suffer from the same fear. we see the fear and react, we have been programmed to try to eliminate fear the moment we see it, programmed to give it plesant names, put up with it or accept it as a part of our lives,accept it as something that we cannot do away with.If this is clear please comment again and only then shall we proceed with our investigations.

  24. >But a certain amount of healthy fear is essential or we would not know love. That is what I am saying. When you’re in love, you enjoy even the pain and anxiety. And I’m not saying this because I’m resigned to my fate. I really do. It makes life worthwhile. By the way, I guess not having that fear is what makes some couples go for swinging parties. I’m sure you agree with me, that that sort of relationship makes no sense, and a certain healthy protectiveness of one’s partner is an essential in any relationship.

  25. >not having fear does not mean going insane. So just because im not afraid, it does not mean I go for a swinging party.And going for a swinging party signifies the existence of a desire and the absence of love.Love is not an entity, It is an action, a verb. There is nothing like “knowing love” there is only loving.The pain and anxiety are signs of you wanting that person, not of your love.Enjoy pain and anxiety?Pain and anxiety are experiences, and like all experiences the mind tends to get bored of them, and then starts looking for something new.But love is a timeless thing, it does not age with the person, its new, by nature.

  26. >No, swinging is not insane for those who are not attached to their partner. If they are not insecure about sharing their love, they can have no objection to swinging.Unless you have the pain and anxiety, you will not appreciate love. Come on, if there is no misery in the world, people will always be happy, which is a contradiction. If you’re always in the same state, you get bored, you said it yourself. Hence the pain helps us to appreciate our feelings, and after that, the healing is all the more pleasant.

  27. >Boredom is an attachment, an attachment to change, when all attachment has ceased there is no boredom.Please see this, Im not talking about the happiness which is the opposite of sorrow. please make sure you understand this last point.

  28. >and, Dhun, try to read Sagar’s words with more care. Remember, it is he himself that he is talking about, not the entire human race. Sure, there is a typpe of love, that includes sharing, the type that swingers probably enjoy. But probably, that’s just not the sort of love sagar’s looking for. Remember, this whole conversation started about HIS preferences, not his prescription for someone else.

  29. >I am just telling sagar because of his 0 distance from flower statement. I am also looking forward that in the middle of this conversation when one of you forgets what he/she is talking about state… it keeps happening to me. And over here is attachment defined as the fear of loss or possesiveness?? by both parties??

  30. >Thats not true compulsive possesiveness may be termed as violent however there also a childish possesiveness which is not violent at all… however it is the kind where the person can stop being possesive at will.. then its a different possesiveness very peaceful.. but i guess that is the whole discussion on.. love at will. ofcourse you can love at will i can love someone then stop loving very easy.. ofcourse there are rules concerning it which i dont know.. but i am forgetting again.. So you still havent told me what You exactly mean by attachment.

  31. >Childish possesiveness like that exhibitted by a child.. before it gets scared by adults.hehehe not attachment .. attachment by will defeats the definition of attachment. but anyway i have realised i am useless at philosophising.

  32. >dude yes i truely believe you ideology are just a very small distance away from mockary, i can really believe that u can go all the way… if u really want to get a girl 1st remove this blog that u have n if so make sure she does never see it. by the way if she will be a pro at innocence she will 1st never understand ur blog n if she is not she will deff not und u … koi baat nahi u keep ur hope up lage raho!!!

  33. >salil~ hope? Im sorry my friend, but you have not undeerstood my words. :-)Meenakshi~ :)anon~ there exists an answer to your question but like your identity, it will remain a mystery.well we have a comment box with 50 comments! cheers!

  34. >why is saagar and dhun being in love with each other such a stupid idea, differently challanged? in any case dhun, i hope in the end you’ve surrendered to sagar’s arguments (however absurd they may be) cause Meenaxi has already started understanding point no. 7 (and so she satisfies point no. 8 too). And these things are apparently important to him. Ah!!! now don’t tell me you aren’t interesnted in him…..simply cause you wouldn’t find a better option (again, however absurd this option may be)

  35. >Anonymous who are you?do you know these people? or have you based your judgement only on this debate? And have you even understood the points that were raised?Till I get answers to these questions, I will have to call your idea stupid, coz I do not see how you could have reached such a conclusion.

  36. >I think its Anant. Can’t you just hear the ring of Anant’s voice in that comment?Either way, Anon, you should seriously have had the totally bind blowing convo I and Sagar had on this. Nothing could be stated very clearly after that.

  37. >i thought differently challanged was anant….that sounded so much like him…….common people, anant is differently challanged…….challanged by too many challanges actually…….anyways i’ve come to a conclusion that this space is devoted to the people who are trying to sound too intelligent and get praised by each other (you konw the kind of group pf people who get together and tell each other that this big bad world never understood them…in short loosers….and loosers like saagar use or rather take refuge in bigger words and more confusing sentances.) …apparently everyone in this country thinks that he or she has understood the concept of love better than anybody else. somedays back i saw a dick head shiv sena leader argueing with another i-know-everything type girl about how the valentine day should be celebrated…sounded so much like dhun and saagar. I hope the TIFR people find this blog before they declare the results of the interview….probably they would realise that they are inviting another fool to join them…actually TIFR sucks more than you people…….and thankfully Dhun is leaving the country next year… something i always wanted to tell you’ll……you guys like this blog suck big time and a lot of people in the college tooo think likewise

  38. >another example…can’t you hear the ring of anant’s voice…common this sentance could have been said in a simple sounding language…but no..he has to say it like this and he doesn’t even realise that it sounds much worse…next time say ring of anant’s thoughts….that atleast makes more sense than “ring of anant’s voice”i’m sorry in case you hear a ring of insulting tone in my voice but seriously guys i feel sorry for you people….having a good career is not everything…you should also be liked by people around you….and its not to late ( though its late to make an impression in the college now)now i know what you people will reply…..”we don’t need your advice or thank you very much anon” or ” we don’t listen to someone hwo doesn’t have guts to give out his name” relax people…i don’t want to prove anything or try and act to smart…the idea is to deliver the message

  39. >Anon~I do not know why you write this, but we seem to have hurt you deeply. It’s okay, we are what we are and we see no point in changing, when we do we will. :)

  40. >Anon~You have raised a lot of points, but very few of them have any relevance.I can only talk about myself.Just because everybody else has definite ideas about love does not mean that any of us here do. Secondly I do not think that talking intelligently about things makes us either ‘loosers’ or fools. I am not embarrassed about the fact that I do not cater to the lowest common denominator.I do not agree about the point raised about being liked by everyone. I do not aspire towards that. I would rater channel my energy towards being nice and kind towards people. And who said anything about a career?Next you need to study a little about figures of speech in English. Only sounds can have a ‘ring to it’.You have still not given any reason for your judgement, so I’ll conclude that either you were being sarcastic or jumping to conclusions.

  41. >Woh! What the….We really seem to have rubbed SOMEONE the wrong way, but it definitely wasn’t intentional. And anyway, how come Anon has so much time to go through ALL of our dialogue?!! Seems to me like a pretty ‘looser’-like thing to do. (And who spells loser as ‘looser’ anyway!) By the way Anon, I don’t know who told you I’m leaving the country next year, but I’m not. Sorry to disappoint. I think we may not have appealed to the likes of Anon, but at least we all have friends.

  42. >um..I’d basically like to clarify one thing, I said ring of Anant’s voice cause I meant ring of Anant’s voice.Your words would sound natural to me in Anant’s voice. I’m sorry if you find that offensive. I donot know what Anant thinks, so his thoughts, I am not at liberty to comment on.Other than that, I am sorry that Sagar disabled the anon thing, cause though there was a lot of Sagar-bashing(which i donot agree with) everyone is entitled to an opinion. But this blog IS about Sagar’s writing, and not his personality, so i guess this makes sense. I am also sorry to see a blog on love drawn towards the topic of hate. That sux. Apologies for anything more complicated than necessary.

  43. >Oh yeah, and likewise, Anont, the TIFR entrance is largely about mathematical capability and not personality, which is why, even though you are obviously very personable and liked, you think it sux(ie didn’t get in).

  44. >Hey i’ve already apologised once on Chitrak’s blog…but for the sake of all the people who only visit this blog and not Chit’s…allow me to say this again….i’m deeply ashamed of what i wrote here ….and you guys did put up some good arguments to defend yourselves….so i must admit that i lose…but there are a few things i need to say to defend myself too1. Thank you for pointing out the right spelling of “losers” to me. Though it doesn’t bother me much since i could communicate correctly what i meant. (I never claimed to be very good in english…in fact i was asking you’ll to put less emphasis on language and more on ideas) Anyways hence forth i’ll use the right spelling.2. I still don’t understand what Chit meant when he said “Apologies for anything more complicated than necessary”….again, i’m not questioning its gramatical correctness…but i only want to know what he meant…did he mean that the apology was not needed or did he mean that a mere apology was not sufficiant. 3. Dhun, what happened to the conditional admission that you had got to some university abroad? (again, forgive me for not remembering the name you’d told me)4. I still believe TIFR sucks…for the reseans i do not intend to discuss5. I never said anythign about Saagar’s personality…but how can his writings and personality be two independent things??? 6. i had clearly said “i ‘hope’ Dhun in the end surrendered to Saagar’s arguments” which meant that i myself had not really bothered to go through the entire conversation.7. btw dhun, “anon (that’s me) and “we friends” are not two completely disjoint sets according me.

  45. >Anon, since I don’t know you, I can’t comment on what I told you. In fact I don’t remember telling anyone except Sagar, Chitrak and Dev. Anyway, the whole thing is off.Secondly, how can you comment on something you haven’t read? I don’t understand pt 7. Are you calling yourself my friend? I thought no one in Xavier’s likes me!

  46. >Anon~ you have troubled your self a lot. If it makes you feel better i shall accept the apologies.About TIFR, well it’s okay if you think it sux because you don’t have to agree on opinions other than yours.My writing and my persona: Yes they are Interlinked. If you are talking about the conversation that took place here, the I can help you understand whatever you haven’t understood. I agree I was fast but the last few paragraphs set the thing right. The rest of my writing is not so much about Ideas, it is about observance. You will not find any propoganda on any of my posts as they are mere observations. And the ornate language is supposed to be that way because I am not producing Ideas, but art.:-)

  47. >Hi Sagar. This is regarding the ‘Anon’ thing above. Apparently, you told Anant that you strongly suspect, it’s me! I find that amusing as I don’t know you too well and couldn’t possibly have anything against you or your friends whom I almost do not know at all. I saw your blog quite some time back, when I was going through Prathamesh’s blog and then I saw it again a few days back when I was searching for the TIFR results and Google returned a link to this page in response to my query containing “Anant TIFR”!It’s not me. I just thought I will let you know.

  48. >Aseem~my apologies for the suspicion I harboured. I have nothing agains you except the suspicion which has now ended. I guess I will never know who he is.

  49. >Eeeek when did all this happen?? hehhehe this was really funny i thought there must be really lot of stuff about love without attachment but its all something else…. One point you know… if you like other people its good for you if you dont you will get into trouble for it… While the idea of somebody else liking me is very irrelevant … its all about who i like rather than the other way around.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: