Love is Not Duty
"When there is love, there is no duty. When you love your wife, you share everything with her—your property, your trouble, your anxiety, your joy. You do not dominate. You are not the man and she the woman to be used and thrown aside, a sort of breeding machine to carry on your name. When there is love, the word duty disappears. It is the man with no love in his heart who talks of rights and duties, and in this country duties and rights have taken the place of love. Regulations have become more important than the warmth of affection. When there is love, the problem is simple; when there is no love, the problem becomes complex. When a man loves his wife and his children, he can never possibly think in terms of duty and rights. Sirs, examine your own hearts and minds. I know you laugh it off—that is one of the tricks of the thoughtless, to laugh at something and push it aside. Your wife does not share your responsibility, your wife does not share your property, she does not have the half of everything that you have because you consider the woman less than yourself, something to be kept and to be used sexually at your convenience when your appetite demands it. So you have invented the words rights and duty; and when the woman rebels, you throw at her these words. It is a static society, a deteriorating society, that talks of duty and rights. If you really examine your hearts and minds, you will find that you have no love."
J. Krishnamurti
J. Krishnamurti
posted by Wendy C. at 3:20 pm
10 Comments:
If people didn't think of duty and rights, many will be leaving their wives or husbands. Many people will be falling in love with other people.
Too simplistic. Not practical.
Tell me more; what does that have to do with love?
What is love?
What is love? I would challenge anyone to provide an answer to that question. I especially hope that you will try to answer it.
But for myself,while I see keeping obligations is a part of love - the keeping of obligations and calling it love is a mistake that one must examine within themselves. I know that love is not merely a dry obligation - a frame of heart where I would walk away from my family if I were no longer "obligated" - I would think it would include sharing joy in the presence of one another, of elation at their triumph, and compassion in their sorrow - and a wanting to be near them, to care for them and see that their needs are met because I could not bear for them to go without what they need, but not because I was "obligated" although I may well be...but because I was deeply concerned with their life, feelings, growth and joy. Obligation is no substitute for a "desire" to provide for another from the colorful, passionate, warm, caring depths of the truest heart. Obligation without love is dead. If my husband only stayed with me because he felt obligated, I would insist that he leave me at once...
So I suppose, although I cannot give a complete definition of love, I can recognize that the difference between love and obligation has to do with "wanting"
They may look the same from the outside, but the insides are very different.
Just my opinion.
If one does not fulfill his duty to his wife or husband, you wouldn't call it love. That would be just like taking love without giving anything in return. It would be mutual taking instead of mutual giving. If the sexual desire is no longer there, as sometimes happens between older couples, people may start looking elsewhere for satisfaction. But if people are married and are obligated to stay married and keep their duties and get their rights, the marriage will stay in tact, and love will remain. If there is sexual disloyalty or adultery involved, you can't expect people to stay together unless there is reconciliation and forgiveness. Love is not just a vague feeling that people have for each other. It is the fulfillment of duties and respect for other people's right. Among other things.
*I keep seeing the same thing*
Obligation means "I do because I have to"
Love means "I do because I desire to"
I hope you are not saying that sexual desire is the only desire that would keep people together. If my husband based his "love" only on sexual desire - I would ask him to leave me immediately. That will never last. But I know that even if my husband were paralysed from the neck down, I would still desire to take care of him and make him happy. It would never stop me from loving my husband...in fact, I guess I really don't think of sex as part of the equasion...I think it may be entirely separate to the issue of love, because I also love my children, and serve them because I love them, not because I am ablogated to.
And speaking of obligations...who issues these "obligations" that we follow them?Where do we come up with the notion of being "obligated"? Who is the "they" behind our sense of obligation? Is it different in different countries or cultures? I wonder...
I was talking about marital love. I think Krishnamurti is also talking especially about it in this passage.
Well, very often the desire to serve another is not there. There is boredom, and often fighting between man and wife. There is no perfect marriage or relationship. There is often conflict and misunderstanding between people. This explains why we have many divorces or disloyalty.
I think people should stay married to each other, unless they start killing each other.
Amen!
This has been an interesting conversation. Thank you very much.
When there is love, would there be questions and confusion? Rights and duties are a framework, and true love recognizes no boundaries. It does not ask for favors in return. What a beautiful thing it would be for two such persons who can love, to come together and share life. Unfortunately, most of us settle for far far less.
Not talking in terms of any relation. There is an endless support like one (anyone) steeped self in any condition/obligation. But when it comes to giving/turning/sharing that effort to other it's condition based. I call that effort as love. That state only applies to self at any condition.
Simply to say love is possible only to self, sharing/giving (don't verb to apply to this love) to other is an illusion.
Post a Comment
<< Home