← Back to Kinfonet

Love "debunked"

I have been always reluctant to talk of love. Love is an abused word, too many people, too many gurus, priests, preachers use it for propaganda: “Jesus loves you” and so on. One can feel there is an off-key sensation or falseness. One is always risking to appear false when talking about love. This is the result of centuries of hypocrisy in a society where love was compulsory and so a faked thing.

Then one meets K. and hears him talking about love. Actually he talked about of what love is not, so that one can see all the falseness that is connected with this word.

Love is linked with the absence of the self, with freedom from the past and so with intelligence. And love is the driving force which allows us to observe our psychological problems and so to wipe them away.

So, when we tackle this issue in a forum, the discussion takes most of the times a twisted path.

Nobody can be sure of anything and we find a variety of interpretations. What K. meant with love? A special kind of love? A “sacred” love, as someone here stated? A myth has been created on this word due to our difficulty to understand its simplicity.

I want to try a different approach. We cannot know or discover love through words, through reasoning, even if we cannot renounce to reason. The only way to get out of the net of words is to rely on the senses.

I have to open a bracket here. I know that love does not belong to the senses, so please don’t jump to hasty conclusions. The senses, or awareness, are only a tool through which we can know if and when there is love.

“Love is there when you are not”. This categoric statement of K. is the cause of so much fussing and so much paralysis. One common conclusion is that we cannot love (because we are here) and one has to wait the disappearance of the self for love to happen. Look around and in yourself and you’ll see we all are still waiting for something that will never happen. We have set love in the future, a future full of if and but.

K. talked over and over again of the now, of living and acting now. “There is no tomorrow”, and yet for us love is tomorrow (just like awareness). Don’t you think there must be something wrong in our perspective?

The senses are now, the only existing or possible “now”. So, when the senses are in full operation there is no past, so no self. And love can be there. Simple, eh? :smiley: But we don’t value simplicity. We are so used, addicted to complicated reasoning that we distrust simplicity.

We can recognize love through its effects. Let’s see what they are.

When we love our consciousness expands, that means there is a sense of expansion, when love is not there our consciousness shrinks. Love is embracing, not loving is resisting.

If we stick with those simple sensations, we will be able to find, now, the way to love. Not “sacred” love of course. I leave that to people looking for ideals. But just the only love we all can live now as we are, not as we should be. And if you think of it, this explains why love is so functional to observation. You cannot observe if you are resisting, if you are contracting both your consciousness and your senses. So a successful observation shows that we were able to expand beyond our little self (even if temporarily) and embrace the other or the universe. And it’s really a pity we refuse to do that because it’s not the “total transformation” K. talked about.

Love is when someone doesn’t have to explain their point of view.

1 Like

We are in a forum, which is meant for discussion, for debate, so explanations are functional to a sane and polite debate. Let love be in your daily life where it can show.

Love goes hand in hand with sincerity, don’t you think so?
Now, be sincere Peter, why you are here?
Because you were touched by K.'s teachings and you are interested in putting them into practice and/or want to discuss them (them not your ideas) with us?

Or you are fond of other theories which you consider better than what K. said?

This questions ought to be answered, clearly and directly, without beating around the bush.

1 Like

Can a self-centered human do anything to “find, now, the way to love”?

Love is when you never speak of love because you’re living it.

2 Likes

No, but if you have read carefully my post above, when there is observation with all the senses fully awake the self is not.

Inquiry, I have the sensation that the “self” for you, as for other people here, is just an excuse for doing nothing. This is paralysis, stagnation. Either is there the possibility to go beyond the self - which is the past - which means you have the possibility to observe and so to live in the present where the self is not, or there is no way out of it, no way to observe, listen, smell, breath, etc. and therefore we are bound to stay within its boundaries, isolated from the rest of the world.

You cannot wait for the total transformation, the total disappearance of the self. It will never happen if you don’t start now to do something. “All or nothing” is the attitude which keeps you stagnating.

If you can know know when “the self is not”, it’s still there.

I agree, and I’m not “stagnating” or pretending I can act selflessly to any degree. I am self-identified until I am not, no matter what I do, so I’m not waiting for freedom, but exploring and learning about the confines of self-centered consciousness.

Then there is no way out but to be what you are. :smiley:

Kimo there is a fundamental difference between what happens in reality and what you think should happen. K. affirmed that when there is pure observation, there is no observer but just observation. I don’t believe to that, because the feeling I have is that “I” am observing. So what shalI do? If I’m not really interested I say good-bye to K. and go my way. If, after all, I want to try, I’ll dedicate to it a consistent part of my life and my energies. Perhaps experience will prove K. wrong or perhaps it will prove him right, but we cannot know it in advance.

How do you explore it? Thinking about it? Are you not capable of observing? And if you observing, are you aware that there could be different quality in observation?

On the whole question of talking together, I differ. I don’t abide by this habit of personal rebukes, and competitive replies. I see most people do this, and don’t see the endless trap of this approach. It is obvious to me there is a topic, such as love, and this is the point of inquiry. Not the abstract, theoretical ideas to debate about it, but the actual nature of the topic in question. Playing with verbal innuendos is not looking at the topic at all. Why even limit the inquiry to a verbal topic, or the opinions about it, at all? Why not negate the mundane, profane, versions, and look at the actual nature of it. Don’t say careful observation is idealistic. That is just the constant verbal censure. That there is no interest in actually looking is something I can’t help. I refer to the topic as raised in the blog and express the nature of it as best I can. It is obvious writing on a blog, or even talking in person, we are using language. To make clever tricks with language is obviously nothing in any way within the nature of love.

I wouldn’t have written “exploring” if I was just thinking.

We don’t actually know that the observer is the observed until the illusion of separation has ended, yet we proceed on the assumption that the observer is the observed because we know our observation serves the illusion of separation. As you say, “we cannot know it” until there is no observer.

Still beating around the bush and not answering to a direct question, eh?
If you differ talking together than don’t talk to me. This is coherence.
Your unwillingness to answer my question shows hypocrisy and dishonesty. You are putting yourself in a position of authority, a quite ridiculous kind of authority actually. If you like playing this role you should open a forum all for yourself, I wish you a great success.

This is great Kimo. Thank you for telling me.

I have read that the Buddha suggested that perhaps a mother with a baby at her breast, might experience love. For myself my quest started with the truth or falseness of the Christian God. Somewhat later I read that ‘God is Love’. Thirty years later I discovered that, ‘with my mind I had made my world’. It was another ten years before I heard K speak and another twenty years before I transcended my conditioning and understood his words by ‘learning to read between the lines’.

who was learning you ?

Do you see the space behind the words and the lines is much greater ?
even aside and before it’s endless !

I hear there might be some silence between the lines. :smiley:

Are you sure?..