top of page
  • Jon Frang Mostad


«The demand to be safe in relationship inevitably breeds sorrow and fear» (J. Krishnamurti). 

Is it so?

When I read late Krishnamurti`s, this beloved Indian spiritual teacher, «Freedom from the Known», my thoughts were radically changed. From the very moment I started questioning «freedom from love», as a disruptive intervention in relations. 

Love as a safe heaven, freed from anxiety, sorrow and abandonment, is an illusion. Most of us want the security of loving and being loved, but is there love when each and one of us seek love for one self?  Sorry, not. When Love is to be separated from fear, - anxiety, sorrow and abandonment will continue.  The Path of Love didn´t go through my own separation from fear. This is becoming a great lesson to me. 

Love, the way I learn it, is just a projection of a clothy me in certain forms of nationality («I love my country»), respecatability («I love my work») and holyness («I love God»). Put on a needle, this is a projection. What I worship is my self, to avoid pain. 

Man cannot figure solving this «thing» called Love, therefor we run into abstractions. We construct «Love» as an ultimate solution to our difficulties. Trying to find a clean and sacrale definition, different religious teachings defines Love in one perspective, to balance we redefine the concept in a profane direction, and here we go. 

Can Love be divided into a Sacrale and Profane understanding? Can Love be divided into «me» and «you»? Is «Love» personal or impersonal?

When I tell you «I love you», what am I really telling you? Am I not running into a measuring of my relation to you? How much do I love you? 100%? Of what? For how long time? What about you before i started loving you? Do I hated you?  Whom do I Not Love? When I love you, what about them? 

You see the nonsense? 

As long as I can rely on my expectations towards you - as long as you manage to provide the protection of my feelings of abandonment, my demands, my lust and so on, I love you. Hence is «Love» the way we define it to day, based on an antagonism between you and me, the object of love and the subject of loving. This is a hostile path of Love and Loving. 

Is it right to rely Love on duty? 

Please help med then to find the right way to a State of Love where there is no demand and duty. There has to be a path. 


0 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page