Stop searching for love. It wants nothing to do with you.
Love is where you are not. It would bomb as a pick up line, but it’s a concept of love worth pondering. They are the words of Jiddu Krishnamurti, a spiritual teacher who traveled the world in the twentieth century extolling the merits of self-inquiry. At first the statement comes across like one of those if-a-tree-falls-in-the-woods Zen mind-benders. But spend a few moments with it and it may dissolve into a valuable insight. Tug on the word ‘you’ and the statement begins to unravel. You, as in ego. Krishnamurti was saying that love can only exist when the ego is not around to muck things up. Few of us would object to such a selfless concept of love. Similar observations by acknowledged subject matter experts like St. Paul and Kahlil Gibran lift our lips into hopeful smiles during wedding ceremonies. In those moments of stillness we contemplate the endlessness of human possibility, but only seconds later we are contemplating the endless flow of free beer at the reception. It’s as if such grand visions of love are too hot to hold, or perhaps too unattainable to sustain our attention. And anyway, who are St. Paul or Kahlil Gibran to lecture anyone about love? The dudes weren’t even married. For better or worse, we view love as an easily acquired treasure. This is because we define it as a feeling, rather than as the shared experience Krishnamurti hints at. We can’t wait to report the news of our surging feelings to friends after a third date with our latest admirer. And three dates later we want to throw open the window and broadcast our feelings to the world. Something inside us has been switched on, and it’s a marvelous feeling that’s hard to describe. Eventually we all find the same word for it—love. But is a feeling that any randy seventh grader can experience really what the world needs more of? If this is love, it is not of the selfless variety. It is all about us, and hooray for that. But feelings come and go, even the rapturous ones, making this kind of love as easy to fall out of as it is to fall into. Is this ephemeral quality evidence of love’s sublime mystery? Or is love, the feeling, too flimsy a structure to stand on its own? Divorced from feeling, love loses its conventional charm. When it’s not being rented out for wedding ceremonies, the concept of love as a shared state of being is considered the property of ascetics like Gandhi and Mother Teresa. Far from romantic, it is a state in which the ego loses its grip and one’s identity merges with those around them. It is love without a speck of self-gratification; in the absence of ego, there is no self seeking any reward. Love exists, according to Krishnamurti, because we no longer do. As inspiring as this selfless model of love might be, who needs it? The old model works just fine. That is, until it breaks down, which it does most of the time when you consider the hefty divorce rate and then guess at the number of burned out marriages. Add to this the legions of lovers meeting similar fates outside the borders of marriage and we have what might be termed an epidemic if it were a contagious disease. And yet somehow none of this dissuades us from hopping aboard the same rickety jalopy for another perilous ride. A more abiding state of love awaits those disillusioned by one too many hapless joyrides. We need not shave our heads or abandon all earthly pleasures to enter this transcendent state, but we must discard the notion that love is a self-fulfilling venture. Love and ego cannot coexist. Like light and shadow, they cancel each other out. For love to appear, you must disappear. You must give yourself so completely that no trace of you remains. Love arises in the space created by your absence. Love is where you are not. John Ptacek
36 Comments
Elise
1/21/2011 02:59:30 am
This is a really interesting perspective. Cheers.
Reply
I couldn't agree more. Funny, I don't find myself using the word love a lot anymore, there is so much attachment to the personal variety that it is often difficult for people to sort out what it is in its universal form. Being deeply impersonal is not the way most people want love to be yet what else could it be? I have found myself using the word Life a lot more simply because it doesn't seem so very personal; but then that's a personal preference now isn't it.
Reply
Trinn
5/14/2011 09:37:50 pm
As a fairly new member of the Baha'i faith I struggle at times with this new definition of love. This less of self more of the other and the act. I read this in many writings from many faiths of all ages and they all pretty much conclude the same as you have, very lovely manner in which you have, that we need to get out of the way. I really really wish I could get out of the way more often. Argh I wished!!!! Thanks for the insights and reminders
Reply
Mary
6/8/2011 10:28:48 am
John, Fabulous rendition and explaination of universal love VS the concept of love that ego has created out of fear. Curious as it is, and nothing is a coinsidence i wrote the following quote on facebook today. " Love is niether lost nor is it found. When someone tells you they have found love with another. It means that they have opened themselves up to loving self. When one tells you they have lost love or that it has been taken from them. It wasnt taken nor lost. They have again lost love for themselves.' Being open to universal love and its limitless abundance will always safe-guard the ego and continuously replinsh the soul. M
Reply
JoAnna
7/2/2011 06:59:33 am
John,the fluidity of your words honor the truths within them, such a gift it is to be able to read them....thank you. This brings up an interesting thought for me. Can love (a selfless state), be conditional? I used to think all love except for that between a parent and a child was conditional. A hypothetical: you love your significant other, but then he/she murders someone or beats you or commits an act that slaps in the face of your morality. That would cause you to no longer love them....conditional love. But now I realize that you might dislike their behavior, their acts....but you dont stop loving them based on that. Real love, is truly selfless... It's not about "you".
Reply
Judy Hazelyn
9/25/2011 04:16:03 am
John,
Reply
madhumita
10/16/2011 09:57:43 pm
I really love the way you have described love. I read a book by M.Scott Peck called 'The Road Less Traveled'. It had a similar description of love. Inspiring!
Reply
Sha'Tara
11/11/2011 12:42:16 pm
Hi John,
Reply
12/21/2011 05:38:41 am
John,
Reply
John Ptacek
12/21/2011 09:11:45 pm
Mark, thanks for sharing your own insights about love. Yes, I believe most equate love with a feeling and this results in us falling out of love as often as we fall into it. Puppy love has no staying power. To perceive love as a state rather than a feeling was a revelation for me. In my view, it boils down to giving someone the space to be exactly who they are.
Reply
1/23/2012 10:35:46 pm
A wise man once told me.."your heart will continue to be broken, until it remain forever open."
Reply
Robin
2/8/2012 09:35:59 am
If you completely loose yourself in love, there will be no "you" for anyone to love back. A relationship starts first and formost between two people, and there can be no intimacy between them if one merges into another. A relationship cannot be had that way. Loose yourself in art, loose yourself in music. Loose yourself in God. But I don't like it when people try loosing themselves with me, there's no one "there" for me to love or be intimate with. We all have ego, and we need them to grow together in relationships.
Reply
janet
9/11/2012 11:40:55 am
That was beautiful.
Reply
Megan
10/22/2012 02:51:11 pm
Your work is amazing. I am so happy i stumbled upon your website :)
Reply
John Ptacek
10/22/2012 07:33:26 pm
Thank you, Megan. Glad to have you here.
Reply
Teresa
12/28/2012 02:33:14 am
Sublime. You put so well into words, simply and beautifully. Having read some texts by Barry Long, here the same selfless nature of love is expressed. Thank you, it was lovely coming across your website.
Reply
john ptacek
12/28/2012 09:34:50 pm
Thank you, Teresa. Please come again.
Reply
Lovely and true. Self fulling ego falsifys everything...True love is not that, it is because it serves selflessly. One need not become a monk to do so, but staying awake and aware, very consciously is "key" in the act of being, interacting with some loveless folks at times. Do not love them because they are not lovable, is not love. Because euphoric feelings that we've aquainted, or heard it shoould be like. with "love" is not that!
Reply
John Ptacek
12/29/2012 07:15:41 pm
Thank you for your insights, Eniale. It appears we hold the same view.
Reply
Randall
1/2/2013 02:25:58 am
Thank you for reminding me what a problem my ego has been causing me, and that I need to release it. I use to know this. I'm sure I'll forget again, or maybe not lol. Anyway, between this and a few other of your writings I have now been reminded of some major things that have been the root of my troubles lately, so I'm going to make it the center of my work. Thank you :)
Reply
I liked your resonse Randall about "I used to know that," About love, and I realized that myself and other spiritual "real" things, as opposed to illlusion, and how it works. That we all have forgotten who we, how it works, life, over millinnia and are reminded in parables and practices that the sages tell us. Andf by very practictal, truthful, straightforward people as on this site..
Reply
John Ptacek
1/2/2013 07:37:28 pm
Thanks for your comments, Randall. We forget and remember together.
Reply
I liked your resonse Randall about "I used to know that," About love, and I realized that myself and other spiritual "real" things, as opposed to illlusion, and how it works. That we all have forgotten who we, how it works, life, over millinnia and are reminded in parables and practices that the sages tell us. Andf by very practictal, truthful, straightforward people as on this site..
Reply
I liked your resonse Randall about "I used to know that," About love, and I realized that myself and other spiritual "real" things, as opposed to illlusion, and how it works. That we all have forgotten who we, how it works, life, over millinnia and are reminded in parables and practices that the sages tell us. Andf by very practictal, truthful, straightforward people as on this site..
Reply
I liked your resonse Randall about "I used to know that," About love, and I realized that myself and other spiritual "real" things, as opposed to illlusion, and how it works. That we all have forgotten who we, how it works, life, over millinnia and are reminded in parables and practices that the sages tell us. Andf by very practictal, truthful, straightforward people as on this site..
Reply
John Ptacek
1/2/2013 07:35:45 pm
Staying awake. Yes. Thank you, Elaine, for chiming in.
Reply
John Ptacek
4/29/2013 08:40:26 am
Obrigado por essa percepção.
Reply
Raquel
8/20/2013 05:40:03 pm
I couldn't sleep...and came across your blogs. I feel so grateful to know that the Universe wanted to give me this peace. Thank you for opening up many people's eyes, including my own.
Reply
John Ptacek
8/20/2013 11:17:35 pm
Touched by your comments, Raquel.
Reply
cc
11/30/2013 12:24:57 pm
So, according to Krishnamurti's dictum, if I want love or want to love, I can't have it, can't be it, can't do it because love can only "be" when my ego is not. Poppycock. This notion of the ego and I being separate or separable is nonsense.
Reply
John Ptacek
11/30/2013 09:08:49 pm
CC, perhaps thinking of love as a selfless act might be more palatable for your tastes.
Reply
Mary Margaret
7/21/2015 11:42:46 pm
Thanks for this discussion, John. At this point in my evolution I think of love as who we are, not necessarily how we are. I like M Scott Peck's definition: "Love is the will to extend oneself for the purpose of nourishing one's own, or another's, spiritual growth." He goes on to say (I'm paraphrasing here) that if you're trying to love someone whose spirit is locked behind impenetrable armor (ego identification) you should probably look elsewhere, or be able to accept that person as they are. To to paraphrase the words of Byron Katie: I know that everyone loves me. I also know that not everyone is aware of that. And now my own thoughts: when I can remember who I am (love) and forgive how I am (ego) then I can love others and see through how they are to who they are. Panache Desai is a good one to listen to when I forget, or need to be reminded of who I am. "You're not broken, and you don't need fixing." I love hearing that as it's quite the opposite of how I used to (and sometimes still) feel. So thanks for sharing your thoughts on love, John. And thanks for listening to mine. It's one of my favorite things to talk about. Love, Mary Margaret (because there was already a Mary who had responded)
Reply
John Ptacek
7/25/2015 01:43:59 am
Mary Margaret, thanks for sharing the wisdom of these luminaries with me. It seems that no matter how you cut it, love is about selflessness. Easy to talk about, harder to put into practice. I like your description of love, exchanging how for who. Very nice. A word I much prefer to love is kindness. Love has so many definitions, kindness is rather self-explanatory. Your kindness is in evidence throughout your letter. Thank you for responding, and please come again!
Reply
Mary Margaret
7/25/2015 02:58:05 am
Thanks for your thoughtful response, John. I would agree that love is about selflessness, if the self referred to is the egoic (or fearful) self. After much consideration, I would say that love is all about selflessness and Self-fullness. Is that even a word? In our society we tend to think of selflessness as positive and selfishness as negative, but Self-fullness, now that's another discussion. As far as the word love is concerned, I too like the word kindness, and have recently heard Thich Nhat Nhan saying that he prefers the word compassion to the word love. I like that, too. Thanks for your kindness and compassion in continuing this discussion!
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
John Ptacek ArchivesCategories |