Love Is Incapable of Adjustment (((Love is not a T

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/17/2006 11:52:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

Mon, 17 Apr 2006 23:54:15 -0000

" billrishel " <illusyn

Love Is Incapable of Adjustment (((Re: Love is not a Thing of the

Mind.

 

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

 

 

 

And strand out on the rocky point,

The one who deigns look downward

To the flailing fools below.

 

There is more freedom in the rising tides

Than in the highest castle

imprisoned by the King's arrogance.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/18/2006 6:14:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:44:03 -0000

" lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

Love Is Incapable of Adjustment (((Re: Love is not a Thing

of the Mind.

 

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote:

 

 

> Some actually believe *their* words belong to them.

> Ha!

>

> Ownership.

>

> The tides of reality sweep beyond the preying thoughts

> of fools.

>

>

> Bill

 

 

And some other believe their words don´t belong to them.

Negative ownership. Which is exactly the same.

 

Len

 

 

 

Yup. To own or disown anything is the same perceptual error that's based on

the erroneous assumption that there is an owner. This can at least be

conceptually understood even if it's not directly perceived. 'We' ARE the words,

whether they seem to be 'our' words or the words of an 'other'.

 

If this is clear, how could there possibly be any struggle with the words?