In common speech, the word love takes duality for granted. Ditto relationship.
In Krishnamurti’s usage of these words, there is no separation, no division, no duality, no subjective being at play. The enigma then is why he chose to refashion these specific words. It has led to seemingly no end of confusion.
Does it? I suppose, of course, it depends on what one means by “duality”; but commonly speaking, the word “love” means some quality of affection, consideration, or care.
Of course, when the word “love” is used in the context of people involved in a sexual relationship, it usually means desire and attachment - but even then, some quality of affection or consideration is still assumed.
Within families, the word “love” can mean responsibility, attachment, duty or fidelity - but again, some quality of affection or care is assumed.
What I understand K to be saying is something very simple: namely that we limit this quality of love to a only few accepted forms of relationship, and in so doing also limit the quality of love itself.
Love itself may not depend upon or require any exclusive relationship with another - it may simply be part of the nature of attention, of a mind that is sensitive, awake to the world (a sensitivity in which there is no division, no sense of separation, etc).
But the quality of love - as affection, as care - is not something an ordinary person has no sense of at all. This quality is necessary to look at a tree, a bird, a flower; to listen to what another person is saying. So I think it is a misunderstanding of K to assume that he could have used any word at all and that the word itself conveys nothing meaningful.
As the Japanese writer Murakami said:
“If you can’t understand it without an explanation, you can’t understand it with an explanation.”
Yes which means harmony. In attachment there is no harmony. There is always anxiety and disharmony in attachment which people call love.
" So we’re asking, what is love? And we’re saying that the negation of what is not love in daily life, every moment of your life, the negation, to put aside what is not love, then out of that negation comes the positive thing called love. You understand? We’re understanding each other? Not theory, not verbal understanding, but actually in our daily life. Otherwise if you do not know how to love, if there is no love, then our society, the structure of our society becomes immoral, as it is, and if you love, your children will be totally different. So one asks, if you are a parent, do you love your children, if you have children? Or you are merely attached, attached to them while they are very young and then push them away, let them lead their own life, and having no relationship with you as the parent. And so where there is no love, you’ll have wars, your children will be killed and maimed, and the other people’s children will be killed and maimed. This is what is actually happening in the world."
Public Talk 5 Ojai, California, USA - 16 April 1977
I’m guessing yes but the problem is we can’t realize it (the boundless love) while we keep killing each other.
Unless understanding ‘shatters itself against its own nothingness’, is it not the very anti-thesis of love K-style?
I don’t know if this is supposed to be a reply to me (I assume it is)?
By “understanding” here Murakami simply means something any intelligent or sensitive person grasps immediately without analysis. If a person - or rather, you Emile - doesn’t have any sense at all of what the word love points to, then there’s not much point in exploring whether there is a deeper or broader significance to that word that K might have had in mind when he spoke about it.
There cannot be a right end by a wrong mean. The end is the mean and the mean is the end. Conflict only leads to further conflict.
I think you are looking at every thing with a black or white lenses.
So by engaging in violence, anger, vengeance, spite, competition, lust, and so on, does it follow “higher love” is an impossibility? While we go about our mischief, the sun shines, food grows out of the earth, water flows from the mountains: the universe cares and provides for us.
This is so cool…K exposes the manipulative parents…
Are we engaged in conflict if others such as family are confrontational and blaming towards us?
If I may point out you are still attributing ‘love’ to a persona. It does not belong to anyone, especially K. Can the flower of love grow where there is a ‘center’? If thought keeps sowing weed seeds how can the flower of love germinate and grow?
Possession is not love. That is understood. We know what love is not. We don’t know what love is.
Isn’t it a fact that the difference is 42?!
Could the ‘knowing’ of what love is not …just be another form of arrogance?
Knowing what love is not, sounds fine - its thinking one can know what love is, that would be arrogant, no?
Love is not verbal. Words are merely for communication. Words don’t define facts. Facts don’t have definition. So defining love is meaningless.
Indeed so. Most of us have layers and layers of knowledge that we carefully hide behind. When these layers of knowledge get tested or questioned it can be quite shocking just how deep these attachments go. Unfortunately, this is not a good way for us to find out about all this because we only have the written word. I cannot look you in the eye nor can you look into mine and see if there is any real honesty and truth behind our words. That is probably why I very rarely come here. Don’t get me wrong a few things can be sorted out and even cleared up but how can I possibly share anything to do with love? In order to truly meet one another, we have to be on the same level at the same time with the same intensity. I don’t say it is impossible here but it is quite rare to meet with another human being on that very deep level where there is no resistance of any kind, no intellectual cleverness which as we have pointed out is a form of arrogance. We human beings are not very good at being vulnerable with each other I’m afraid 
That is why this quality of love remains hidden from view most of the time…
We can make friends here, we can spot particularly quirky personalities, but in my mind, the main thing for me is the challenge of communication : are we able to share ideas; and the challenge of learning : can those ideas be refined, or dropped. (without pain - free from identification)