Why is pleasure more dominant than love? | J. Krishnamurti

[@ajitabh04]

" you may call it love but it's a dead thing" ....very true I can see this thing in my parents

[@meghan42]

I can see it in myself.

[@ThomiX0.0]

You might only 'see' it in yourself..not in others.

[@Bigboyjingles]

@@ThomiX0.0 How so?

[@BinaryRex18]

Even 44 years after the fact, this talk by K remains highly relevant and thought-provoking...

[@raghavendrangurumurthy3173]

This will remain relevant till human kind exists ! He is an enlightened being ..

[@omanirudh3010]

You probably meant thought unprovoking /silencing

[@uvrocker]

@@raghavendrangurumurthy3173 Beware of calling anyone enlightened or guru...JK will not agree with you :)

[@Adam-vp1cl]

Truth is forever relevant

[@jigneshvyas3105]

Truth is eternal.

[@rl3920]

If I m alive today and living gracefully then that's only because of this man.. His teachings and his books proved to be my saviour..

[@imartisingla598]

Can you suggest me his bestest book?

[@AbhishekSingh-wr9sz]

@@imartisingla598 Freedom from known and total freedom best books

[@buzzyshorts7679]

Which of his books did you read?

[@gregnicholls8347]

All these sensations - pleasure, enjoyment, delight, love, are an effect of brain activity. It seems pleasure is an effect of pursuit - first an idea, an effect of thought, and then fulfilment, so the outcome of brain is momentary completion. This dominates Love for Love has no pursuit - Love is freedom from all pursuit, desire, want. This Love is brain activity, brain in the sensation silence. But brain is trapped by conditioning into want, desire as the fulfilment of pleasure.

[@caseyj9]

So grateful for this camera crew, audience, and the people behind Krishnamurti foundation 🙏🏾 Thank you

[@maheshasmkumar4947]

I never saw anyone hating this man

[@adhi2193]

"There is beauty only when 'you' are not" To the bottom of ones heart

[@Userae_473]

I wonder how this channel got to know what I am going through

[@awara_hu]

Everyone is going through the same notion......that's y

[@adrianlee3497]

Algorithms 😆😆

[@akashdeep-xc6nc]

Not u human mind even other animals too like my dog dominated by pleasure.

[@cuttingmotions3636]

Algorithmic AI .....

[@rgmoney14101994]

1:23 What a massive crowd!!!

[@dr.keshavamurthy2785]

Thank you J Krishnamurti sir. In Bluish-Violet light of Lord Kalki, 2021 Shakti and Purusha, lord Hanuman and Goddess Adishakti. With Humility and lots of Unconditional love, peace, joy, oneness and expanded Awareness 🙏💙💜

[@yacovmitchenko1490]

I admire Krishnamurti and he speaks truth most of the time. He also tends to speak in extremes - all or nothing. He says "We have no love" while i say "We have love, but there are selfish elements; it's impure, limited." The fact of the matter is that we can genuinely care for people, even though we may be attached to them, or have vested interests. There are shades of grey; we're complicated, multi-faceted. He focuses too much on our negative aspects. It's fine to acknowledge and go into them, provided one is willing to admit we have redeeming qualities, however limited - including the capacity to inquire, to examine our psyche. Moreover, he keeps stating that we are memory, anger, and so on, not mentioning the fact that we're not only those since we can observe them coming and going. If we were only memory or anger, we couldn't begin to examine those; we'd be trapped. He neglects to point out that in addition to being anger, we are also the intelligence that can inquire into anger. We are not merely our egoistic tendencies. My approach toward memory is nuanced. While it's true that being dominated by memory is an obstructing factor (where love is concerned), it can also serve love. Imagine for a moment that you couldn't remember your beloved, due to an accident or brain damage. Not only would you fail to recognize your beloved; your love for that person would be effectively gone. That person would be a stranger. Perhaps not quite a stranger; you might still be instinctively drawn to him/her, though the love would be undeveloped, due to a lack of personal history. Or alternatively, memory can play the following role (in a different context): part of the history, for example, is that the beloved once had saved your life by donating one of her organs to you. So you remember that, the memory of which enhances your love for that person. In other words, a shared history can be both limiting (constricting) AND a source of richness, depending on what that history is and/or how it's approached. Or consider it this way. You love someone and have been physically apart from that person for, say, a week. That person went on a business trip to Chicago, while you're sitting in your sofa in Florida. So you remember that person; you recall him/her frequently. Clearly love and memory are playing off of each other; they are intimately connected. You remember so-and-so as you do precisely because you love the person; love spurs on the memory, the recollection. Were you not in love, you would probably not remember him/her, or at least would think of that individual rarely or infrequently. The point is that memory is not merely functional; it gives love a sense of direction. Question: how do you know you love him/her without memory (of that person)? You can be wholly immersed in the moment, to the point that an egoistic sense of identity is not. But that doesn't mean the whole past is wiped out, nor should it be that way. You're perfectly aware of what you and your partner did a year ago, and that memory, as a part of a story, can be truly beautiful and a contributing factor to the love you have now. Yet memory can become rotten too; yes, it can prevent one from living fully in the present. However, not necessarily. Let's look at memory in a different context. A judge or jury wouldn't, in the manner of Krishnamurti, say of someone found guilty: "But we're not meeting him now; our decision is based on what he did in the past; we're tethered to the past; we have no relationship to what he is NOW." Do you see what I'm driving at? It's not merely a pragmatic point I'm making. In a very real sense, the past actually MATTERS where our relationships are concerned. People respond to us in part, quite naturally, on the basis of our past acts. If we're open-minded and generous, we see that a person can change; a person isn't bound by the past. But still the past matters - and it matters with regards to love as well. I have often heard Krishnamurti claiming that we're the rest of humanity, all basically, essentially the same. Well - yes and no. He would make out the differences to be superficial or just minor variations. This is where I disagree. Sure, we all suffer hardships, we all experience sorrow and anxiety at some point, we're born alone and we die alone, we all fall ill and die eventually. However, degree and context matter. The fact is that some people are much happier than others, or some are much more miserable than others. The situation of a person who loves his job, who has a beautiful caring wife, and many material comforts is very different from the situation of a homeless person or someone living in a 3rd world country. The latter may be fortunate to get just one decent meal a day. My point is that this gap is not minor; it's a yawning chasm. Although the one with a great job and beautiful wife suffers, his suffering cannot be compared with that of one about whom no one cares and who winds up dying in the gutter. Another point of contention with Krishnamurti. Traditional gurus have long made the claim (among them Ramana Maharshi) that we need to remove the obscurations and the Self is naturally there. Krishnamurti calls this a theory merely, and goes about negation only. It's a commendable approach for the rigorous few, but it won't work for the majority of seekers. It's not enough to state what one takes to be true; one must be sensitive to the individual needs of the seeker. In other words, one must see where the seeker is emotionally, and find a way that most resonates with him/her if progress is to be made. Most people need the reassurance that the Self is already there; without that assurance, that hope, they won't proceed. That's just the way it is; you can't simply fault them for lacking in seriousness. That's why, as a teacher, Ramana was more effective in a way: for he considered where the student was psychologically and emotionally. His approach was multi-faceted.

[@counterintuitivepanda4555]

He often said memory was obviously necessary. I agree that he spoke in extremes but if you look at his teachings as a whole and not just a few of his speeches it becomes clear what he really means. Only a fool would say memory is not necessary at all. When you say memory can serve love, I think it's important to note that love does not come out of memory at all. Love is. Having established that, memory has it's rightful place as K says.

[@yacovmitchenko1490]

@@counterintuitivepanda4555 Thanks for the reply. Clearly, Krishnamurti acknowledges the place of memory. He has stated on numerous occasions that we need it to learn a language, build a car or computer, find our way home, etc. It seems for him a useful, pragmatic function. But he has also emphasized the point that, where love is concerned, it plays no useful role in the psychological sphere. This is the point at which our views diverge. As suggested in my lengthy comment, it CAN serve a beneficial role EVEN in the PSYCHOLOGICAL sphere. I don't think Krishnamurti would accept this position. If your beloved, for example, has donated her organ to you in the past, the memory of that certainly can enhance or underscore your love for her. Granted, love is not memory. As you said, love is (or is not). However, where Krishnamurti regards memory as having a pragmatic function only, I would suggest more: namely, that memory and love can be intimately connected.

[@karenann5090]

@@yacovmitchenko1490 I think Krishnamurti means something different than what you have understood when he says “We are the rest of humanity”. If you watch the 7th video of K, David Bohm and Dr. Shainberg you will understand what he means. He reveals a very non-dualistic viewpoint. If you continue to listen closely to other talks, you will see that he is explaining a non-dual approach which while it may seem negative is the quickest way to cut through the illusion.

[@yacovmitchenko1490]

@@karenann5090 I understand that point, but my point is that his view leaves out certain relevant considerations. I studied those videos carefully, and I still think that insightful though he was, his understanding was only partial in some ways. At the very least, he did not mention what should have been mentioned. The question is not whether the approach is "non-dual"; the question rather is whether a response is satisfying.

[@Pieter-JanNotebaart]

The question for today. Exactly this point my mind has.

[@Warper39]

Such a joy to listen this man. Puts me in deep meditation by itself

[@ashishgupta9857]

Absolutely agree!!! Every word is full of meaning, one has to listen him carefully to understand this!! Perhaps these are his own findings, and something unique always needs attention to understand!!

[@Shunya_Advait]

Krishnamurti is love.

[@awara_hu]

No...... he's not love.... he's a speaker

[@meghan42]

@@awara_hu His speaking comes from love.

[@supreetb6453]

He is only a speaker, you have never been with him to know more....

[@Sonu_verma12051]

So loving 🙏!!

[@peakinonolympus]

Wow simply amazing

[@IUWEUS]

Thank you 🙏🌹

[@laxminagh0916]

Love is always recommad as a dual mode operation , but the pleasure is the ultimate boss,means always above the love.

[@viveksanyal2773]

Thank you

[@amy9964]

Humans so called 'being in relation' is the side effect of reciprocal altruism. The primary aim is to avoid conflict or attack by making numerous mutual pleasurable memories ( smart vertebrates do that). Family is the side effects of 'individual selection 'to give copies of their genes to Future generation. So basically love is pleasure. Pleasure leads to pain (expectations creates illusion so lead to pain). Love is attachment.

[@annelbeab8124]

That's not love but attachment and 'deals'

[@MrGeedeebain]

It's seems alien to pan over a crowd and nobody is recording with their phone.

[@AyushSingh-ed9fc]

You are so cute JK 😍

[@thayermanns4286]

Rapper KRS 1 Quoted from this in the song ':Love is gonna get you. "

[@bhoot786]

Wao! 🙏🌹

[@rk4041]

♥️💗

[@rahulmysore9004]

Can i ask for the link of the complete video bite, please 😊

[@KFoundation]

For this and any other extracts, you can look it up yourself by searching for the full talk using the information in the video description. In this case, simply search for 'Ojai 1977 Talk 4' either directly on KZbin or Google. If you learn this method you won't need to ask for the link again. Hope this helps.

[@rahulmysore9004]

@@KFoundation yes indeed, Thank you :)

[@BamBhole1]

👌🙋‍♂️

[@ravisiwach7803]

Love

[@alperenekici3806]

Caption please

[@sagartbyword9233]

Is love pleasure?

[@awara_hu]

LoL no😂

[@oxoxyouu]

why not? us becoming love (or the existence of love in our lives) brings joy and pleasure, even if love isn't manifested physically

[@howdareyou5800]

there is pleasant love and love pleasurable.

[@VitaminM1]

Only when you are not doing for yourself but for next person you care all the life

[@abhishekpatra7954]

I think these spiritual meetings are sometimes English grammar lessons 😂😂😂

[@mkh2799]

🙏

[@manojkumar-jl1td]

If the rememberence of past or things b/w man and woman is relationship why parents still live together and continue their life with conflicts ? And hw jk is knowing with out experiencing of all stuff sex, plusure can able to defined . As a young adult I attracted some one she attracted me and involving pleasure I experienced some thing which is differently new wt I thought it would be befr is not same. And why anyone felt guilty in their mindes after fullfill or experienced sexual pleasure ? Is possible to love somebody wthout involving any kind of pleasure if not is pleasure is the base to the love or love is synonym word we use for social life 🤯.

[@Vikas7Kharb]

He says hope you don’t have any guru. One who says, “I have knowledge.” So what is he doing? Is it not knowledge that he shares through his talks. What is this speaking? A proposition? Doesn’t he believe in it as in knowing what he is speaking.

[@surindersingh-uq4vl]

No one has been able to free himself or herself from this vicious cycle of pleasures. Some are more involved, some less. I think so long as we keep ourselves engaged in various skills and works, we can fix this temptation of pleasures

[@vidchan4247]

That's not true, there are dozens of enlightened people in the world even today. And even with moderate experience in meditation you can achieve states of full satisfaction / no desire.

[@user-jr8cl3tk2p]

What did this man actually do? Apart from sitting there and mumbling incoherently for hours?🙄Nothing of importance. What about his followers? Who sit there and their who tells them they are better for they listen to this man? They also don't do anything of importance 🤦

[@birbott2032]

You've watched and commented on at least seven of his videos. People seek discourse in their life from multiple sources..he happens to be one of them. Why are you so bitter at a man who is no more? Maybe you should take your own advice and contribute to society instead of being a bitter arse.

[@1ManCristian]

This man talked and some people listened. It remains for each one of us to decide if what this man said was incoherent or not. He never said that you should take for granted what he spoke about, but to enquire and find out for yourself if what he talks about is true or not.

[@NikhilKumar-hh5ws]

Lol.

[@adrianlee3497]

Thank you 🙏 💖