Why You Cannot Love. ~ John Ptacek

Via elephant journal
on Dec 29, 2010
get elephant's newsletter

Love is where you are not.

It wouldn’t work so well 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 questions conventional thinking and he wants you to question it too.  He writes for a living, and when he’s not writing he’s either watching birds or making soup.  He lives in Wisconsin with his wife, Kitty.


About elephant journal

elephant journal is dedicated to "bringing together those working (and playing) to create enlightened society." We're about anything that helps us to live a good life that's also good for others, and our planet. >>> Founded as a print magazine in 2002, we went national in 2005 and then (because mainstream magazine distribution is wildly inefficient from an eco-responsible point of view) transitioned online in 2009. >>> elephant's been named to 30 top new media lists, and was voted #1 in the US on twitter's Shorty Awards for #green content...two years running. >>> Get involved: > Subscribe to our free Best of the Week e-newsletter. > Follow us on Twitter Fan us on Facebook. > Write: send article or query. > Advertise. > Pay for what you read, help indie journalism survive and thrive.


5 Responses to “Why You Cannot Love. ~ John Ptacek”

  1. pjbjd says:

    In a marriage it has to be mutual or it doesn't work either.

  2. harikirtana says:

    I would amend this idea with a qualification: love and false ego cannot co-exist. For love to appear the false ego – the one that identifies with the body, mind, and senses – must disappear. But the experience of love requires a lover and a beloved. Beyond absolute unity is a transcendental duality. Love is where the false ego gives way to the true self. When we move beyond the notion of love as an egocentric venture and repose our love in the ultimate abode of love, love is where we are.

  3. Joe Sparks says:

    As distressing as it may seem to not be loved, to feel that you are loved, or to have a patterned block that makes it difficult or impossible to realize that you are loved, it is far more distressing to not be able to love, or to not be allowed to love, or to not have your love accepted.

  4. John Ptacek says:

    You are suggesting that love can exist in the presence of a certain kind of ego, but I am unaware of what this might be. We might toggle between the relative and the absolute, harikirtana, but can love?

  5. John Ptacek says:

    I understand and appreciate your perspective, harikirtana. However, my ego only seems to have one gear. Thank you for your thoughtful response, and goodnight.