Are you here to engage seriously with the issues around conditioning, thought, fear that Krishnamurti went to great lengths to outline, or are you just here to defend an entirely superficial belief system of yours? And is there something about having your notion of your self knowing love called into question that you find troublesome?
I’m here to talk about real things of our daily life and not of abstractions. Love is something real and touchable, our words are not. If you are not capable to go beyond words and tackle the real thing then K. is not for you.
So what are you calling real here?
Do you need a definition to know what is real?
No, I am asking you for yours rather than assume my reality is your reality.
I don’t need definitions and I don’t think you need them too. If you cannot distinguish the real moon from the word “moon” you surely don’t live in the same reality as mine.
So do you want to talk about a moon or do you want to talk about something closer to home?
It was an example. Before you joined the discussion we were talking about love and thought.
Fine. So love it is. Is love real for you?
Sorry, enough for today, i’m going to bed.
The forecast for tomorrow morning is conditioning all over to begin with, with occasional spots of love early on, and brief seeming moments of clarity later, before a blanket coverage of dullness returns by late afternoon and on into the evening 
Ah! Good forecast! I’m glad you have a fine sense of humour. 
Quite easy to do (like predicting rain in England) dullness always follows us like our shade. 
I can only reply with the Beatles words: “…if tomorrow will be rain, i’ll follow the sun.”
Logically – as you said – either it’s love or it’s not. But I’m even doubting about the validity of logic as far as human matters are concerned. Human lives can be very different, some are a complete failure (divorce, family violence, etc) and the lack of love is evident, but others works well enough even if with ups and downs. So my idea is, if it’s not love then what keeps those relationships going on? At old age sex is not there anymore, so no sense of possession, and yet a couple, or friends, can be still affectionate to each other.
Let me go again about the relationship between thinking and perceiving. As I have said one excludes the other and yet we are continuously perceiving objectively the world around us otherwise we could not live in a decent way. What happens (and it’s something easy to observe in oneself) is that we switch from thought to perception (and vice versa) in a matter of a fraction of second, so at a superficial level it seems we are thinking and perceiving at the same time. Then thought takes charge with its associations, idiosyncrasies, conditionings, etc. and so it influences our perceptions or even pervert them. However, this does not exclude that we may have genuine, objective perceptions. If the power of thought was absolute then we would be lost, and this is what happens in madness.
Therefore, I think this can be applied to love too. Of course most of what people call love is not love but just attachment, possession, gratification, pleasure, etc., but if we have not clouded our perceptions completely, there is always the possibility to feel genuine, disinterested love. So instead of talking about “either this or that” we could say: “this and that”.
K. was very categoric in public, not so when speaking to friends. One small example: once in a small group discussion (sorry I can’t remember where or when) Mary Zimbalist replied to one question of his saying: “…but Krishnaji, you said that we are responsible for all the disorder there is in this word…” K. promptly told her: “forget about that.” From the context it seemed he was saying: “this does not apply to you”.
So we continue to think of love, and we are talking about sacred love, as an affection. We spend a lot of time trying to reinvent love, our love with ourselves and with others. The sacred love, if we use a word to talk about it, is interchangeable with the word, intelligence, for example, or even nothingness. The sacred love is where there is no self, and all that. Where there is no self, no materialism, no ideas, there is the unnamed space of an undivided living world. Then we can say, this is love.
1 Like
Is our conditioning total, absolute? If it is so then we are doomed (and there is no sense in studying K.’s teachings). Or is there the possibility to have an unconditioned perception and therefore an unconditioned love?
My position about this matter is that we should not be concerned in examining our conditioning in order to love. Let love flourish by its own, we cannot decide in advance, sitting in an armchair, whether it’s real love or not. It will show by itself in our actions and reactions, that is in daily life.
I wonder what some people means with “sacred love”, is it a theoretical, theological phenomenon? Or it is a reality to us? Is it something we heard by another person, an authority, and so we cling to it, or give it for granted?
K. said that to go far one must start near, so instead of hypothesizing what is there in a “sacred realm” why we don’t consider, examine, appreciate what is here, in us and around us? In saying that sacred love is where there is no self, there is the danger of condemning the self, especially when this statement comes from another self. We must love our self, or ourselves, and that is the only way to start a healthy exploration.
Shared pleasures, fond memories, sharing good times at movies or at a good restaurant…and so on…trips to the beach, hiking, sharing. It’s all based upon pleasure and fulfillment. Not judging but pointing out the facts as I see them. What we normally call love is not love. Love is not pleasure, K often said. Or rather, he often asked, “Is love pleasure?”
1 Like
Of course we have genuine perception…sensory perception. If not, we’d be unable to cross the street without getting hit by a car. Or we wouldn’t know what a rose looks or smells like. K is speaking about a deeper perception, however, when one sees the tree with no division at all…when one sees the tree as it is…or one sees one’s wife or child as they are. That’s total seeing…seeing the whole in the part. Then there’s love…in the seeing with no division. He’s not speaking of superficial perception…superficial sensory perception, that is. We all have that type of perception or we’d be unable to survive a minute on our own. We’d be in a coma or some similar state.
Are you saying there can be conditioning and non-conditioning, side-by-side, in the same space? That there can be conditioning, and then there can be love, and then there can be conditioning again, and then later on love can pop back in?
I cannot look at conditioning in order to love, or in order to anything. I look at conditioning at a depth and that reveals the defensive strategy by the psyche to protect itself, which is real. The whole question of love being for the conditioned mind was gone into over and over by Krishnamurti, and is obviously one of the psyche’s major sticking points, which it has great difficulty dealing with. The fantasy about love being is up there with the fantasy of the other not being myself.
My perception of the other being myself. In a relative sense all selves are selves (which is not the same as I am you). In an absolute sense there may be neither other nor self - but that is theoretical from where we stand.