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? 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.