Love
Question: The most grounded fundamental charge in all religions is to cherish your individual man. For what reason is this basic truth so hard to complete?
Krishnamurti: Why is it that we are unequipped for cherishing? I don’t get it’s meaning to cherish your individual man? Is it a precept, or is it a straightforward reality that on the off chance that I don’t love you and you don’t love me, there must be loathe, brutality, and pulverization?
What keeps us from seeing the exceptionally straightforward actuality that this world is our own, that this world is yours and mine to live upon, unified by nationalities, by wildernesses, to live upon cheerfully, beneficially, with enjoyment, with fondness and empathy?
Can any anyone explain why we don’t see this? I can give you heaps of clarifications, and you can give me parts more, yet simple clarifications will never kill the way that we don’t love our neighbor. Actually, it is on the grounds that we are everlastingly giving clarifications and causes that we don’t confront the reality.
You give one reason, I give another, and we battle about causes and clarifications. We are separated as Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, either. We state we don’t love due to social conditions, or on the grounds that it is our karma, or in light of the fact that someone has a lot of cash while we have practically nothing. We offer countless clarifications, heaps of words, and in the net of words we get captured.
The truth of the matter is that we don’t love our neighbor, and we are hesitant to confront that reality, so we enjoy clarifications, in words and the portrayal of the causes; we quote the Gita, the Bible, the Koran, anything to abstain from confronting the straightforward actuality.
With the looking of that reality there comes an alternate quality; and it is this quality that spares the world.
What happens when you face the reality and know for yourself that you don’t love your neighbor or your child? In the event that you adored your child, you would instruct him completely in an unexpected way; you would teach him not to fit into this spoiled society, yet to act naturally adequate, to be smart, to know about every one of the impacts around him in which he is gotten, covered, and which never enable him to be free.
On the off chance that you cherished your child, who is likewise your neighbor, there would be no wars since you would need to secure him, not your property, your negligible little conviction, your financial balance, your appalling nation or your limited philosophy. So you don’t love, and that is true.
The Bible, the Gita or the Koran may guide you to cherish your neighbor, yet the truth of the matter is that you don’t love. Presently, when you face that reality, what occurs? What happens when you know that you are not cherishing, and monitoring that reality, don’t offer clarifications or give causes with respect to why you don’t love? It is exceptionally clear.
You are left with the stripped certainty that you don’t love, that you feel no empathy. The derisive way you converse with others, the regard you show to your chief, the profound, respectful salute with which you welcome your master, your quest for power, your relationship with a nation, your looking for – this demonstrates you don’t love. In the event that you start from that point you can accomplish something.
On the off chance that you are visually impaired and truly know it, in the event that you don’t envision you can see, what occurs? You move gradually, you contact, you feel; another affectability appears. So also, when I realize that I have no affection, and don’t profess to cherish, when I am mindful of the way that I have no empathy and don’t seek after the perfect, at that point with the looking of that reality there comes an alternate quality; and it is this quality that spares the world, not sorted out religion or a cunning philosophy.
It is the point at which the heart is unfilled that the things of the mind fill it; and the things of the psyche are the clarifications of that vacancy, the words that portray its causes.
Along these lines, in the event that you truly need to stop wars, in the event that you truly need to put a conclusion to this contention inside society, you should confront the way that you don’t love.
You may go to a sanctuary and offer blooms to a stone picture, however that won’t give the heart this uncommon nature of empathy and love, which comes just when the psyche is tranquil, and not voracious or desirous.
When you know about the way that you have no adoration, and don’t flee from it by attempting to clarify it, or discover its motivation, at that point that very mindfulness starts to accomplish something; it brings tenderness, a feeling of empathy. At that point there is a probability of making a world entirely unexpected from this clamorous and severe reality which we currently call life.
Our hearts are loaded up with the things of the brain
Relationship, on the off chance that we permit it, can be a procedure of self-disclosure; however since we don’t permit it, relationship turns out to be only a satisfying action. For whatever length of time that the psyche only utilizes relationship for its own security, that relationship will undoubtedly make disarray and hostility. Is it conceivable to live in relationship without interest, need or delight? Which implies, is it conceivable to adore without the obstruction of the psyche? We adore with the psyche, our hearts are loaded up with the things of the brain, yet the manufactures of the brain can’t be love. You can’t consider love. You can consider the individual whom you cherish, however that thinking isn’t love, thus step by step thought replaces love.
At the point when the psyche winds up incomparable, exceptionally significant, clearly there can be no fondness. We have filled our hearts with the things of the brain, and the things of the psyche are basically thoughts – what ought to be, and what ought not be. Would relationship be able to be founded on a thought? On the off chance that it is, is it not a self-encasing action and in this way unavoidable that there ought to be dispute, difficulty, and wretchedness?
However, on the off chance that the brain doesn’t meddle, it isn’t raising a hindrance, it isn’t restraining stifling or sublimating itself. This is very troublesome, on the grounds that it isn’t through assurance, practice or order, that the psyche can stop to meddle; the mind will stop to meddle just when there is full perception of its own procedure. At that point just is it conceivable to have right association with the one and with the many, free of conflict and dissension.
Love is a fire without smoke
Question: I can’t consider an adoration which is neither felt nor thought of. You are presumably utilizing the word love to show something different. Is it not really?
Krishnamurti: When we state love, I’m not catching our meaning by it? All things considered, not hypothetically, I’m not catching our meaning? It is a procedure of sensation and thought, is it not? That is the thing that we mean by adoration: a procedure of idea, a procedure of sensation.
Is thought, love? When I consider you, is that adoration? When I state that affection must be indifferent or all inclusive, is that adoration? Doubtlessly, thought is the consequence of an inclination, of sensation, and insofar as affection is held inside the field of sensation and thought, clearly there must be strife in that procedure. What’s more, must we not see whether there is something past the field of idea?
We don’t have the foggiest idea how to adore, we just realize how to consider love.
We recognize what love is in the conventional sense: a procedure of idea and sensation. On the off chance that we don’t think about an individual, we figure we don’t love them; in the event that we don’t feel, we think there is no affection. In any case, is that all? Or then again is love something past? Also, to discover, must not thought as sensation arrive at an end? All things considered, when we cherish someone, we consider them, we have an image of them. That is, the thing that we call love is a reasoning procedure, a sensation, which is memory: the memory of what we did or didn’t do with the person in question. So memory, which is the aftereffect of sensation, which ends up verbalized idea, is the thing that we call love. What’s more, notwithstanding when we state that affection is indifferent, vast, or what you will, it is as yet a procedure of idea.
Presently, is love a procedure of idea? Would we be able to consider love? We can consider the individual, or consider recollections with respect to that individual, yet is that adoration? Clearly, love is a fire without smoke. The smoke is that with which we are commonplace – the smoke of desire, of outrage, of reliance, of calling it individual or unoriginal, the smoke of connection.
We have not the fire, however we are completely familiar with the smoke; and it is conceivable to have that fire just when the smoke isn’t. Along these lines our worry isn’t with adoration, regardless of whether it is something past the psyche or past sensation, however to be free of the smoke: the smoke of desire, of jealousy, the smoke of division, of distress and agony. Just when the smoke isn’t will we realize what is the fire.
What’s more, the fire is neither individual nor indifferent, neither widespread nor specific – it is only a fire; and there is the truth of that fire just when the psyche, the entire procedure of idea, has been comprehended. In this way, there can be love just when the smoke of contention of rivalry, battle, begrudge, arrives at an end, since that procedure breeds resistance, in which there is dread. For whatever length of time that there is dread, there is no fellowship, for one can’t cooperative through the screen of smoke.
In this way, obviously love is conceivable just without the smoke; and as we are familiar with the smoke, let us go into it totally, comprehend it completely, in order to be free of it. At that point just will we realize that fire which is neither individual nor unoriginal and which has no name. That which is new can’t be given a name.
Our inquiry isn’t what love is, yet what are the things that are counteracting the totality of that fire? We don’t have a clue how to cherish, we just realize how to consider love. In the very procedure of reasoning we make the smoke of the “me” and the “mine”, and in that we are gotten. Just when we are equipped for liberating ourselves from the way toward considering affection and every one of the inconveniences that emerge out of it, is there a plausibility of having that fire.
