Love vs. Being in love

Being in love...is a more intense state.
And it is typically with a significant other.

Love itself can be many things...at many levels.
And you can love anyone or anything.

 

One is a noun. The other is a verb.

 

Let me elaborate.

Much of my perspective on love is derived from Buddhist philosophy, which generally states that love is wishing others peace and happiness. There are actual mediations where you progressively wish peace and happiness for those closest to you outward as far as those you consider difficult or your enemy, and beyond. It's a meditation teaching that everyone deserves love (commonly referred to as loving-kindness, or metta). By extension, this means that everyone deserves peace and happiness, even those who wish to harm you. In many cases, those who wish to harm you do so out of a position of ignorance and/or considerable pain. Rather than wish them harm in return, wishing instead for them to have peace and happiness makes sense. After all, who among us filled with peace and happiness wish us harm?

Beyond that, we can examine our intimate relationships to look at different qualities of love. Of course, it's naturally easier for us to love those closest to us than love our enemies or those we are indifferent to, but even so we should be careful how we handle this love, as it can lead to dependence and attachment. The Buddha taught the dangers of clinging to the idea that "we have partners, we have children, therefore we have wealth," as in: love as a kind of possession. Buddhism views reality as transient, and so clinging to an idea of love as a thing we have, rather than a thing we do, can be limiting. It can even be counterproductive, as we can often formulate unnecessary expectations in our love relationships. We wish to achieve a kind of status and we hope we can maintain that status, hope that it will never change. Unfortunately, reality never rests. Change is inevitable.

To understand love is to realize it as a verb, not a noun. Buddhism places a lot of emphasis on action. It's what we do that matters, not merely what we think about or what we have. Cause and effect is how the world operates. If you love someone (wish them peace and happiness), it is your generosity and kindness towards them that matters the most.

The way to look at it, I guess, in a nutshell, is that love isn't something you give or get; love is something you do.

 

I'll put it in succinct terms.

Love is caring.
Being in love is passion.

Meaning...if you "love" your SO, you care for them, you want the best for them, to protect them, etc.
"in love" you WANT them, you feel like you cannot be without them, you want to be with them often, you want their attention, etc.

It's a different intensity.

So, if you're looking at your SO, and going ..."that's nice"...then that's likely "love"
If you're looking at your SO, and going "oh, that SOOOOoooo nice" ...then that's likely "in love"

Now, do not confuse successful relationships with this.
There are many that do well and love each other just fine without any soap opera levels of "love".
Don't just dump someone just because you don't have that intensity...because it might do there...and flux back & forth over time.
Intensity doesn't have to be "hot" either...it can be a warm, comfortable, easy "in love" too.

If you're questioning, then it may be "love"
If you've got no doubt, then it's "in love"
But even that is not cut & dry...good relationships just keep being such.
It is a difficult question.

However, I do know...ANY long-relationship takes work and will have their challenges.
All participants will flux in their feelings, needs, desires, and so on, through-out the whole thing...and they often won't be in-sync.

----------

My question to you is...why you asking??
There is a reason...

 

I can love chocolate chip cookies. It doesn't mean that I want to do things for them, and it doesn't mean they return my feelings.

This is actually a theme in one of my stories, and this passage captures what I think the difference is.

Later, she tells a friend:

 

To oversimplify, it's the difference between an affection for someone (caring) and a strong interest in something that gives you pleasure (like cookies).

However, I don't view love (the affection kind) as something that only exists if it's returned. That suggests to me that it requires a "return on an investment," or that you need to get something similar out of it, that you need to "break even" to justify it.

Don't get me wrong, though. A relationship with mutual feelings is a stronger relationship than one that's more one-sided. Either way, I believe you can love someone who doesn't love you back.

 

I snarf that bacon so fast it has no time to love me in return.
--- merged: Jun 19, 2014 at 7:42 PM ---

You can love someone that doesn't love you back, but being in love implies that the feeling is returned, that it's an active process between two people.

 

Yes, the age-old "in love," certainly. I suppose we could say it's impossible to be in love if one of the parties is indifferent.

[insert vague reference to centuries' worth of poetry]

 

I demand more than vague references, @Baraka_Guru. You're better than that.

 

I'm working. I'll compile some of my favourite love poetry later.

Maybe.

 

Such a tease.

 

from Ten Things I Hate About You

Bianca: There's a difference between like and love. Because, I like my Skechers, but I love my Prada backpack.
Chastity: But I love my Skechers.
Bianca: That's because you don't have a Prada backpack.