“Thought is the very denial of love, and it cannot enter into that space where the me is not.” K. in “Meditations”. That’s a pretty radical statement from K. Any comments?
Here’s the whole excerpt:
In the space which thought creates around itself there is no love.This space divides man from man, and in it is all the becoming, the battle of life, the agony and fear. Meditation is the ending of this space, the ending of the me. Then relationship has quite a different meaning, for in that space which is not made by thought, the other does not exist, for you do not exist. Meditation then is not the pursuit of some vision, however sanctified by tradition. Rather it is the the endless space where thought cannot enter. To us, the little space made by thought around itself, which is the me, is extremely important, for this is all the mind knows, identifying itself with everything that is in that space. And the fear of “not being” is born in that space.
But in meditation, when this is understood, the mind can enter into a dimension of space where action is inaction. We do not know what love is, for in the space by thought around itself as the me, love is the conflict of the me and the not-me. This conflict, this torture is not love.
Thought is the very denial of love, and it cannot enter into that space where the me is not. In that space is the benediction which man seeks and cannot find. He seeks it within the frontiers of thought, and thought destroys the ecstasy of this benediction.
The force of the separate thinker illusion persists because of the momentous force of thought itself? If a person has been hypnotized and has been suggested to act a certain way, even if you tell that person that they are acting that way because someone has hypnotized them, they will find justifications for doing what they are doing and not that they are under a ‘spell’. I don’t know if that applies to our situation. But it might. That thought creates the illusory me. And I believe I’m ‘real’ not a projection?
Not to us here perhaps, but most people elevate thought…especially the Christians…thoughts of God or of the highest…of doing good…of ‘letting Jesus into your heart’…of prayer (thought). And so on. Then there are the thoughts of my wife or my child, if I have one…my girlfriend. I equate those thoughts and memories with love. Most people do this, no?
I’ve often reflected about the relationship between thought and love, because I have the tendency to concede to thinking the possibility to love. After all I feel I’m loving many things and people around me. But at the same time to me is evident that K. meant a completely different thing with the word love. He says:
“In the space which thought creates around itself there is no love”
To put it very simply: thought and perception are two completely different fields which exclude one another (or at least the field of thought excludes that of love), and love belongs to perception. According to K. love is that close relationship we may have with things and people the moment we are really in touch with them, and we can be really in touch with them only through perception. And the moment I’m thinking I’m not actually perceiving reality anymore.
Right. And how can there be love when you’re divided from your wife or neighbor by thought/thinking? If I’m not actually perceiving them, then I’m divided from them. Not saying I should NOT be thinking, but only that it’s obviously not love to be thinking of someone…and not actually in direct contact/perceiving.
Yes, and yet we feel we are in contact with someone through thinking! There is a gigantic overestimation of what thought is and of what it can do… while on the other side there is a underestimation of perception.
Amazing isn’t it? But you’re absolutely correct in this. I think of my wife or child with warm memories and I think that’s love. Almost every one of us does this in one way or another…with a girlfriend or boyfriend or even a favorite pet. Kind of crazy that we deceive ourselves like this, isn’t it?
Yes, quite crazy… but the picture would not be complete if we don’t take into consideration that many of us do have a perception of the other -sometimes - inspite of all the thinking going on, and this makes our lives a bit intelligent. Madness is a mind which is completely isolated because it only dwells in thought so it is hopelessly cut out of reality. This reminds me of a discussion here (the observer is NOT the observed) which was started by Dominic where he had an extreme position about the possibility of being in touch with the other or with anything. He denied this possibility, but that happens only with alienated people.
That is what I have understood about your long and complex discourse. If I am wrong you should be able to explain better (and in a simple way) what you really meant in the follwing sentence:
“but there is a question of where that configuration lies here, whether it is in matter apprehended by senses, or in the brain, as a movement it is, and where the notion of contact, as in detection, comes in, and whether the brain is in fact in contact with anything outside of itself.”
To me that suggests me that you are denying or maybe doubting that the brain is in contact with anything outside itself. If you didn’t mean to say so then perhaps you shoud consider wording what you want to say in a simpler and clearer way.
If I see a member of the opposite sex, and feel attracted. Am I in contact with myself (my interpretations and chemical processes) or the “outside reality”?
If I see a person of a different culture or skin colour and feel superior/inferior? What am I in contact with?
If I intepret what someone has said - and find them wanting, what then?
Some people are alienated, are traumatised, have different experiences - we should not use it against them, nor for our own construction.
I don’t think so. As I have said the fact that we use thinking in our relationships (and so have images) does not exclude that we can have (and we surely do have) real perceptions. Don’t you have them?
Why don’t you answer your own questions and then we can discuss further. The first instance was a description of our instinctive sexual attraction. K was talking about seeing the whole person…not just a pretty face or a sexy body…obviously.