Love Is Incapable of Adjustment (((Love is not a Thing of the Mind.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote:

>

>

> --- billrishel <illusyn a écrit :

>

>

>

> >

> > " Love is not a thing of the mind, is it? Love is not

> merely the

> > sexual act, is it? Love is something which the mind

> can not possibly

> > conceive. Love is something which cannot be

> formulated. And without

> > love, you become related; without love, you marry.

> Then, in that

> > marriage, you " adjust yourselves " to each other.

> Lovely phrase! You

> > adjust yourselves to each other, which is again an

> intellectual

> > process, is it not? . . . This adjustment is

> obviously a mental

> > process. All adjustments are. But, surely, love is

> incapable of

> > adjustment. You know, sirs, don't you, that if you

> love another,

> > there is no " adjustment. " There is only complete

> fusion. Only when

> > there is no love do we begin to adjust. And this

> adjustment is

> called

> > marriage. Hence, marriage fails, because it is the

> very source of

> > conflict, a battle between two people. It is an

> extraordinarily

> > complex problem, like all problems, but more so

> because the

> > appetites, the urges, are so strong. So, a mind

> which is merely

> > adjusting itself can never be chaste. A mind which

> is seeking

> > happiness through sex can never be chaste. Though

> you may

> momentarily

> > have, in that act, self-abnegation,

> self-forgetfulness, the very

> > pursuit of that happiness, which is of the mind,

> makes the mind

> > unchaste. Chastity comes into being only where there

> is love. "

> >

> > " Love Is Incapable of Adjustment " - The Book of Life

> (April 16)

> >

> > http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/index.php?

> >

>

> What is said here about " adjustment " is quite

> interesting.

>

> There can only be adjustment as *to* some " other " ...

> that is clear. *Adjustment* then is by nature not of

> oneness, and so conflict is woven into it from the

> start.

>

> And then he says, " love is incapable of adjustment... "

>

> Why? Because love (actual love) is not something " one

> has " toward another. Love simply is. Love is a

> dissolving

> of separateness into What Is.

>

> And there can be no separateness in What Is.

>

> So love and What Is are different terms that really

> mean the same.

>

> But what is What Is but complete/unconditional

> acceptance?

>

> So it is clear then that love is acceptance.

>

> Love is not, " I wish you/he/she were different in

> X way, " or, " I wish life were different in X way. "

>

> And so then, love is not about " relationships " , is it?

> Rather, love is *complete relationship*.

>

> If there is complete love, complete acceptance of

> What Is, then there is no barrier, no resistance,

> and hence no conflict.

>

> So for there to be love the battle must be given up.

> The struggle *for* (it doesn't matter what for)

> has already died when love is realized as What Is.

>

>

>

> Bill

>

> Love simply is, as you say,

> Nothing or no-one can do anything about or against it,

> because it doesn`t belong to anyone.

>

 

Some actually believe *their* words belong to them.

Ha!

 

Ownership.

 

The tides of reality sweep beyond the preying thoughts

of fools.

 

 

Bill