Meditations on love

Must love be rational? Different groups have different answers for this question, and these answers often exist as unstated assumptions in what they say and think. For instance, most of western society seems to answer in the negative, saying that love can be irrational. From this basis, we have people believing in things like blind love, love at first sight, and other such things. However, one thing to be noted is that, in a lot of theological discussions, theologians seem to automatically assume that love must be rational, and thus they go off trying to explain the nature and reasons for God's love revealed to us. They will talk about God being gracious as the result of His seeking of his own glory and, more simply, His pleasure. However, I fail to see how the pursuit of pleasure is in any way a exercise of rationality.
Of course, for those who accept that love can be irrational, they can look at the amazing love and grace which God has shown. Ask them why God has done what he has done, and they will simply answer “God is Love,” with no other explanation needed in their minds.
Now, as I mentioned, there are many in the West who accept that love can be irrational. But what about in the East? What do eastern minds think concerning this subject?
Well, from what I see, it looks as though they believe that love must be rational. They see love emerging from irrational passion as something dangerous and to be avoided, in contrast with many in the West.
However, as I look at that, I wonder how this mindset came to be, for I must admit that my thoughts and my mind has been formed mainly with Western influences. Here is my hypothesis:
Asian society has by this point in time been influenced by Buddhism and other eastern philosophies and religions. At the core of Buddhism is a desire to destroy all passions, in the pursuit of peace and Nirvana. (I must admit that my understanding of such topics is quite limited, so I cannot say much here.) Thus, perhaps their view concerning love and the danger of love emerging from irrational passion is mainly the result of this type of thought.
As for me, what do I believe? Well, I believe that love can definitely be irrational. Irrationality most certainly accompanies many instances of love. And thus, one must be cautious when under the influence of this thing called love.
But why be cautious? At the same time that I believe what I have written above, it seems strange to me, this idea of putting love subject to rationality. Do we not see in I Cor 13 that love is the most important thing, not rationality?
Indeed, that question lingers: why be cautious?
--------------------
From what I see, Love is not primarily a state of mind, or an emotion. No, Love is primarily a way of acting towards another. To put it simply (and to paraphrase DC Talk), Love is a verb, not a noun.
Love must be shown in action. Or rather, Love must be active, but not necessarily shown. For instance, I know God loves me, but I must also recognize that I cannot see many of the instances of his love for me.
To confine a lover to inaction is to frustrate that lover and, indeed, love itself. For one who wants to love another, the limitation of that one to not show that love must be a hellish ordeal indeed. But then, one must ask: If love is not being acted out, can we then say that it is truly love? Is it not then in that case simply a matter of the mind and the emotion?
Here is another question: can the suppression of love be an example of love acted out? And, in that case, what can be said of the lover? Is that lover a better or worse lover for this suppression of love in the name of love?
These questions linger.