Chapter 12 Confrontation about "Love"

All religions and devout people always attach love and devotion to a particular object, belief or symbol, it is not love without any hindrance.That's the point, sir.Can love exist when there is an ego in it? Of course not. MO: Thinking seems to me to be part of a creative relationship, but it's only one part of the whole thing. K: Yes, but is thinking love? M: No, it's not, but I do have a little doubt that thinking can't go into love? I mean, it must be to some extent. K: No, I doubt that love is thinking. Mo: No, of course not. K: So, is it possible to love without thinking? To love someone means without thinking; that would bring about a totally different relationship, a different act.

Mo: Yes, I think there can be a lot of thinking in a loving relationship, but thinking is not the main thing. K: No, thinking can be used when there is love, but not the other way around. Mo: Not the other way around, yes.The basic problem with this is that it tends to be the other way around.We are like computers, driven by our programs.I tried to convert what you said thinking about ending a relationship, and strange, what kind of relationship is not thinking about it. K: Just see what happens without thinking.I have a relationship with my brother, my wife, that is not based on thinking, but basically, deeply, on love.In love, in that wonderful feeling, why should I think? Love is inclusive, but when thinking enters, it becomes discriminating, destroying the quality of love and its beauty.

M: But is love all-encompassing? Is it not all-encompassing rather than comprehensible? Love cannot fully express itself without thinking? K: Overall it is all-encompassing.I mean, love is not the opposite of hate. Mo: Yes. K: So it has no emotion of duality itself. M: I think love is more of a quality of relationship and a quality of being permeated and pursued. K: Yes.As soon as the thought arises, I remember what she did, or what I did: all the trouble, the anxiety, arises.One of our difficulties is that we really don't know or feel love without possessiveness, attachment, jealousy, and hatred.

M: Isn't love the consciousness of oneness? K: You are saying that love has no consciousness, that is love.Love does not realize that we are one.It's like perfume.You cannot dissect perfume, or analyze perfume.It's a great fragrance, and when you analyze it, it dissipates. Mo: Yeah, if you say it's a perfume, then it's like some sort of quality.But traits have to do with this sense of oneness, don't they? K: But you are giving it meaning. MO: I'm talking about it! I don't want to limit it.But is it possible to have love without awareness of oneness? K: Love is better than that.

Mo: Well, love is better than that.But can it exist without a sense of oneness? K: Wait a minute.Can I be a Catholic and say I have love, I have compassion? Can there be mercy and love when people have deep-rooted beliefs, beliefs, prejudices? Love must go with freedom.Not freedom to do what I like - that's bullshit, freedom to choose and so on is worthless in what we're talking about - but there must be total freedom in love. MO: Yes, but Catholics may have a lot of love, but in some cases there is a limit. K: Yes, of course. M: But that would be like asking: Is it possible that only part of your egg is broken! This sense of oneness is part of the whole love, isn't it?

K: If we have love, we are one. Mo: Yes, of course.I agree with you that having a sense of oneness is not necessarily love. K: You see, all religions and pious people always attach love and devotion to a particular object, belief or symbol, it is not love without any hindrance.That's the point, sir.Can love exist when there is an ego in it? Of course not. M: But if you say that the ego is a bound impression, then love cannot coexist with anything bound, because it has no limit. K: Exactly, sir. M: But for me, it seems that in the relationship of dialogue, interacting with two minds without a sense of boundaries—that is, external time, because time will set limits—and then new things will appear.

K: Ah, but do two minds meet? Are they like two parallel railroad tracks that never meet? In our relationships with others, wives and husbands and so on, are always parallel, the individual pursues his own trajectory, never A real rendezvous, so there is no real love for another person, or even love without an object? M: In practical situations, there is always some degree of separation. K: Yes, that's what I said. MO: If relationships can be on different levels, then there are no longer separate trajectories in space. K: Of course, but it seems impossible to get to that level.I depend on my wife, I tell her "I love her" and she depends on me.Is it love? I possess her, she possesses me, or she likes to be possessed, etc. All these complicated relationships.But I say to her, or she says "I love you" to me, and that seems to satisfy us.I ask if this is love.

M: Well, it makes people feel better for a while. K: And is comfort love? M: It is restricted, and when the wife dies, the other suffers. K: Yes, he will be lonely, he will cry, he will suffer.We should really discuss this.I once knew a guy who had money as his god.He had a lot of money and when he was dying he wanted to see everything he had.And those possessions were him, and to them he was dying, outwardly, but what was outside him was himself.He was scared to death, not because his life was about to end, but because he would lose those possessions.You know what? Lose those things instead of losing yourself and discover new things.

Mo: Can I ask a question about death? For example, a person is dying, and before he dies, he wants to see all the people he knows, all his friends.Is this a dependency on relationships? K: Yes, that is dependence.He was dying, and death was lonely, and it was a most special party, a most special event.At that time, I wanted to see my wife, my children, my grandkids, because I knew I was going to lose them, I was going to die and it was over.That's a scary thing.One day, I saw a dying man.Sir, I have never seen such fear, death of fear."I'm terrified of being separated from my family, my money and the things I've done. This is my home. I love them and I'm afraid of losing them," he said.

MO: But I think this guy wants to see all his friends and family. K: "Bye, man, we'll meet on the other side!" That's another thing. Mo: Possibly. K: I know a guy who told his family, "Next January, I'm going to die someday." And on that day, he invited all his friends and his family.He said, "I'm going to die today," and made a will, and said, "Please leave." They all left, and he died! MO: Yes, if the relationship with these people was important to him and he was dying, he would want to see them one last time, and it's over now. "I'm done, I'm going to die." That's not dependency.

K: No, of course not.The result of dependence is distress, anxiety, and feelings of pain and loss. Mo: Often feel insecure, fearful. K: Insecurity and so on will follow.And I call it love.I say I love my wife, but deep down in my heart, I know all the pain of this dependence, but I can't let it go. Mo: But you will still be distressed. When you die, your wife will be very sad. K: Oh! Yeah, that's part of the game, part of the whole thing.She can get over it soon enough, and remarry, to continue the game. MO: Yeah, hopefully, but someone worries or fears someone else's grief. K: Exactly, sir. M: Perhaps accepting their own mortality would make them less sad. K: No, is grief attached to fear? I am afraid of death, I am afraid of ending my career, physically and psychologically, what I have accumulated will end.Fear invented reincarnation and all that.Am I truly free from the fear of death? That is: Can I live with death? Not suicidal, I live with it, with the fear that things will end, with the end of my dependence.If I say, "I'm no longer dependent on you," will my wife accept that statement? It will cause a lot of pain.I question all the content that this brings to consciousness through thought.Thought dominates our lives, and I ask myself whether thought has its own place, and only this place, without interfering elsewhere.Why should I be thinking about my relationship with my friends, my wife, my daughter? Why should I be thinking? When someone says "I was thinking of you," it sounds kind of silly. M: Then, of course, one often needs to think of others for practical reasons. K: That is different.But I mean, why have thoughts where there is love? Thoughts in a relationship are destructive.That's dependent, that's possessive, clinging to each other, looking for comfort, safety, security, and none of that is love. M: No, but as you said, when love can use thought, it produces what you call thinking in relationship. K: Yes, that is different.If I am dependent on my wife, or my husband, or a piece of furniture, I fall in love with this dependence, and the consequences are incalculable harm.Can I love my wife without dependencies? How wonderful it is to be able to love without asking for anything! M: It's a great freedom. K: Yes, sir.So love is freedom. M: But you imply that if there is love between husband and wife, and one of them dies, the other will not be sad.I thought maybe that was right. K: I think so.Yes, sir. Mo: You will go beyond sorrow. K: Grief is thought, grief is emotion, grief is shock, grief is the sense of loss, the feeling of losing someone, and suddenly finding yourself completely lonely and alone. Mo: Yes.So, you think the state of loneliness is unnatural. K: So, if I can understand the nature of endings -- always ending something, ending my ambitions, ending my sorrows, ending my fears, ending my complexities of desire.To end it is to die.We need to put an end to all the things that have accumulated mentally every day. M: And everyone agrees that death is freedom. K: That is real freedom. M: It is not difficult to appreciate it.You mean, you're going to translate that extreme freedom into people's lives. K: Yes, sir.Otherwise we are slaves, slaves of choice, slaves of everything. Mo: Not the master of time, but the slave of time. K: Yes, slave of time. Discussion with Professor Maurice Wiggins Editor's Note: Maurice Wiggins, Professor, University of London, Nobel Laureate in Biology.