Unconditional love, for a few minutes.
There is a giver, the receiver, and what is being given.
Then there is the questioner, a forum, and the answerers.

It is the frictionless acceptance by the giver of the receiver. The receiver may be unaware, or unable to be aware. Almost by definition, the giver is also unaware, especially as it may be outshone by other facets of giving and openness in that being.

The usual context in a discussion presents this relationship as unequal, with the receiver being less aware and open, and the giver being more so in order to do the giving and the opening.

It is at this point of unpicking that conditionality becomes visible, even if unintentional and benign and with the best of intentions.
Because when the process condenses from nonmaterial universal love or acceptance or consciousness (whatever that means) to a specific more tangible describable form, then it takes a form and shape which are inherently conditional – conditions by which we recognise and speak of and engage with that love.

You might say that the more you demand a form or shape for this unconditional love, then the less unconditional the love becomes.

We espouse unconditional love as being not for individual, human, even material. So we as material individual humans cannot tap into such unconditional love as material individual humans. So the more that we cede our materiality, individuality and humanity, then the more we can tap into nonmaterial unconditional acceptance. Which kind of transforms the love that we sought into something we won’t recognise, either as a material individual human, or for material individual humans.

So at one end of a spectrum you have universal unconditional acceptance which is 100% immaterial love without shape or form. And at the other end of the spectrum, a love for you personally, only the single you, especially your personal features, where we might be able to replace unconditional with another word such as commitment or compulsion.

In frequent contexts, we espouse the example of the murdered forgiving his/her murderer. I guess this is best seen as the victim having that left end of the spectrum, and to the murderer off the right end of the spectrum. If we attempt to bring these two together, then we have the difficulty of identifying concepts and criteria which are sufficiently common to both levels. Morality, rights, philosophy, etc, tend to polarise and split when accomodating both ends – restitution or retribution. They help, at the price of contaminating our grasping of that original unconditional love.

In our context, unconditional love additionally implies there is a witness. Most obviously, the receiver senses this love at least passively, if not actively from the giver. But obviously, unconditional love can exist without a witness, but it just makes it more slippery, immaterial and harder to discuss.

In the most practical sense, having unconditional love flow from its greatest source to its greatest destination means unwinding our preconditions, preconceptions and ultimately identity. Whether or not you believe the ultimate source is outside you, the relevant flow is what flows from you. The more you give instances and shapes to that unconditional acceptance which forms the channel, the more you give friction to the flow. Sure, it might be wise to have conditional love for this armed attacker with a weapon in front of you, but never take it personally, nor carry it beyond its passing, else it will forever be a drag.

The question is – what are you aware of that is a drag?

Or even better, what question can I put to myself, or what situation I can put myself into, that would reveal the most drag that I have that I’m unaware of?