Hi Rick,
Can I say love is not related to reality?
It depends what you mean by those words.
Mac
Love is not related to reality, that is what we have learnt so far as it is not the product of thought, but Jiddu is referring to society in his era.
Our idea of Love is put together by thought, thus part of Reality (if Reality means “my understanding of reality”)
But - if as you say, we don’t know what Love is, then its not part of our Reality
Reality (in the sense we are using the word here) is the fruit of thought. Is love related to thought?
When we describe something which we either perceived or observed, our description cannot define everything about the dynamic which we have observed in a given situation. Therefore, our description is very limited in nature.
If two or more people who witnessed the same situation agreed up on the description which we have given and along with some reasoning, then it becomes fact, I think. Why because the situation we have described has been validated by others and the provided information connects with other pieces of information for a given situation.
Jiddu use negation principle just not to describe the love with any definition. From that context, we can say that it is not related to thought. 
Why not? Surely we can - it is the unknown stuff that we cannot describe - I don’t understand what you are trying to address
Oups! I think you are saying that the totality of everything cannot be described?
For example.
Just look at things in front of you and describe in your own words.
I am sure that, your description is limited.
I think, that is what Jiddu is referring to as “truth” which we cannot put in words and it cannot be repeated again. I do not know exactly, James should have done some work on that.
All the members of a Christian congregation know (with their souls, hearts, minds) that Jesus rose from the dead. Is the Resurrection a fact for these people?
(Note: This has nothing to do with sivaram and Douglas’s conversation.)
That was an excellent question.
In this case there is no validation with pure perception, then how it can be a fact?
May be here we have to use the word reality (I do not know).
For example:
- “The reality is that people think that Resurrection as a fact”
In the similar way Jiddu said
- “Love is a desire in the field of reality” (Here, Jiddu wanted to say that people have misunderstood that lust or desire to pleasure as love ( as he had a conclusion that love is not related to thought inside his mind when he said it))
Rick, compare above statements and give your understanding.
Hi Mac
Put all of your doubts in this thread, such that we can connect everything.
Rick, you also.
Thinking that the Resurrection is a fact is a product of thought, so it belongs to the field of reality.
Does that sound right?
That makes sense. 
Yup, you got it well.
we could put it like this
“Resurrection is a fact in reality”
1 Like
After discussing with you guys, now I am feeling that,
-
Truth, Actuality and Fact are closely related terms where they are not related to thought.
-
Whereas reality is pointing at what people are thinking in a given time era. (it could be lie, fact or something else)
Rick, Mac, James, Drax, Paul and Inquiry should say some thing on my set of conclusions.
Apologies for being late to the thread.
Both. Emotions - as we understand them for the time being (e.g. fear, desire, hurt) - are created by thought (and so are realties); but they also generate actual sensations in the chemistry of the body (and so are actualities).
This is why - as I understand it - K said that suffering is an actuality in the field of reality.
I think you will have to get the exact quotation and its context. The inclusion of a non-grammatical “the” in the sentence makes no sense (this may be your own, or K’s, unwitting grammatical error).
However, from the sentence as it is given, I predict that the sentence was made by K after 1975 (i.e. after the series of conversations between K and Bohm where they discussed the meaning of “reality”, “actuality”, and “truth”), and that it means:
Love - when it is interpreted through the filter of reality (i.e. thought) - is desire.
That is all K is saying here. Love is obviously not thought, not desire, for K. And therefore love cannot exist in the field of reality.
But desire can exist in the field of reality, because it has been created by thought.
Yes… However, even though truth is in the same ‘direction’ as actuality and factuality, it is really in a different league of its own (at least in the way we are using the word ‘truth’ here). Because truth can only exist for a mind that is empty, that is nothing.
Its okay sir no worries.
Okay
I had a similar kind of grasp on the above statement as you said.
Can I say that reality is also important apart from truth, fact and actuality?
Reality has its place, yes. Reality (i.e. our thinking) has put together technology, medicine, surgery, computers, machines, cars, ships, aeroplanes, spacecraft, bathrooms, refrigerators, sewage works, bridges, roads, houses, agriculture.
We cannot live with thought (without reality).
But thought (as reality) has also created national divisions, racial divisions, religious divisions, caste divisions, social divisions, the divisions of sex, of woman and man, of mankind and nature, of human beings and the earth. Thought (as reality) has also created nuclear bombs, missiles and guns and warships.
It has also created (psychologically) fear, desire, loneliness, envy, jealousy, hurt, sorrow. It has created illusion - my god and your god, my belief and your belief, my image and your image - and therefore conflict.
So reality is highly problematic, you see.
I have to agree on what you said 
But we have to deal with different kinds of people. People from different places have their own kinds of reality. What I feel is that one should be aware of such reality while dealing situations, Otherwise things could go wrong.
For example, I cannot talk in the way I talk with you people at my surroundings as the reality is totally different at my surroundings.