Is LOVE opposite to DESIRE? Do they counterbalance each other? Is there love if there is no desire?
"Love" is too general of a term. It means different things, with different flows, at different times.
Love #1 - Inflow Love. Such as "I love shrimp", "I loved that gorgeous sunset, "I love having sex", or "I love the Beatles". In all of these cases, it is primarily about what YOU feel or receive as a sensation. It is entirely based on GETTING something from "out there". I would expect that for THIS type of love,
yes, there is no love without desire. In ALL cases of INFLOW type "love" one WANTS or NEEDS the energy that is coming in at the person. It is all ego-based. Or at least, "me-based". Let her rip! Bring it on! Give me them YUMMY sensations (sex, food, taste, feelings, perceptions of beauty, drug euphoria, etc)! It requires separation from all that is, with an identity and viewpoint to cause isolation and thus be able to "receive" energy as an effect from everything else "out there".
Love #2 - Outflow Love. Such as "I am filled with the Love of God", "I love my children and would do ANYTHING for their happiness and betterment", "I feel love for all mankind", etc. This is the "unconditional love" of New Age philosophies, the "Grace of God" that shines down infinitely upon all that is, the "spiritual light of total giving and benefit to all that is", etc. This "love" is non-ego-based, and flows out upon the target without reservation, without qualification, and without ANY attention on "getting anything back" for what you give out
freely and compassionately. Some would say Jesus "lived" this energy and viewpoint in some ways.
Using THIS second definition and type of love,
YES, love could be viewed as OPPOSITE to "desire". But, I think that is a stretch, and requires very specific meanings of the terms. In a higher sense, ALL stems from LOVE, including creation in all forms, and all that is, including that which makes up "desire". Some have the opinion that "love" is the highest energy right before the pure intention to create. I don't know. Could be. Sounds good though. But, THAT sort of love, that which sets the entire universe into motion, is way different and "above" normal human desire or "needful love"
I think that "love" and "desire" are two different things, that each cover widely different types of energies, and they in no way "counterbalance" each other. It would be like saying that an orange could counterbalance 3 pounds. Total different type things; there is no way to put these into an equation where one would "balance out" the other. From a "high spiritual view", it might seem that "Love" (higher, egoless type) would "counterbalance" desire (being of the ego). But, that wouldn't really be what was happening - though from a limited perspective it might seem that way.
But also, it could be viewed that the "desire of God" put all that is into motion. But, "intention" is probably a better word than "desire". I don't know if the term "desire" makes sense without the "desirer" existing as a viewpoint with an inflow ability to receive sensation and feelings.
But really, I don't know. I, like most people, am familiar primarily with IDEAS about these things. I read once that at any time on Earth, that there are only SEVEN fully enlightened beings. Like Meher Baba, Babaji and others. Maybe there are, and maybe there aren't.
I would expect that if that is true though, that any answer to these questions would ONLY be able to be answered by them, and it is debatable whether any of them could really tell you anything that you could understand (since it would apparently be SO greatly outside of your current reality and EXPERIENCE). Maybe that is why Meher Baba stopped talking entirely for the last 40 years of his life. Possibly, while he may have "known it all", there wasn't a thing he could "say" to anyone who would be able to "hear it". Like in the movie Matrix, at the end, when Neo is standing in the hallway with the three agents shooting at him, and he SEES REALITY for what it is, in a way that few or no others do or can, and he simply raises his hand, say "no", and the bullets stop and drop. His experience and involvement with reality, being of a much "higher" and more "aware" nature is entirely different than everyone else's. "Nobody can tell you about the Matrix, you must experience it for yourself". (Morpheus) Or in the words of Lao Tze, "the Tao that can be spoken of is NOT the true Tao".
On "gut feelings", I have seen MANY cases with many people where the source of "gut feelings" was NOT at all "intuition" or "higher perception", but more often based on vague or unclear "wishful thinking", "delusion", "fears", or "surges of dubious information from the subconscious".
I think that there may be a "power of intuition" that can be nurtured, developed and appealed to, BUT, how many actually do THAT as opposed to "delusion" is anyone's guess.
Like with Scientology, and many people's involvement with it, the DESIRE for an answer, the DESIRE for sense, the DESIRE for truth, and the desire for an "explanation", may play a FAR greater part in what is thought about and accepted by any person than anything else. Also, all or most of what has been posted on this thread. People BELIEVED he or she "found the truth" in Scientology, and to the degree ANY person still remains with any such notion that "I NOW have found the truth" means that this person is STILL in exactly the SAME spot as before (you have just changed the CONTENT of what you now accept, assert and claim to be TRUTH). Believers and pushers of beliefs (viewpoints) are in no short supply!
It is interesting how many people, once a member of one cult, jump ship and simply adopt some
new and different set of beliefs. It is the mechanism that remains the same - looking for and adopting BELIEFS about "the nature of truth and reality". For me, I suppose I aspire to agnosticism. I just have no clue! I treat almost all as theories and opinions - and then there is what I experience. All else is moot. And sadly or strangely, what I experience, CHANGES day by day, hour by hour, and even moment by moment. So much for "stability" by hooking onto "reality"!