Posted:
Obviously
love is not sentiment. To be sentimental, to be emotional, is not love,
because sentimentality and emotion are mere sensations. A religious
person who weeps about Jesus or Krishna, about his guru and somebody
else is merely sentimental, emotional. He is indulging in sensation,
which is a process of thought, and thought is not love. Thought is the
result of sensation, so the person who is sentimental, who is emotional,
cannot possibly know love. Again, aren’t we emotional and sentimental?
Sentimentality, emotionalism, is merely a form of self-expansion. To be
full of emotion is obviously not love, because a sentimental person can
be cruel when his sentiments are not responded to, when his feelings
have no outlet. An emotional person can be stirred to hatred, to war, to
butchery. A man who is sentimental, full of tears for his religion,
surely, has no love.
- Krishnamurti, The First and Last Freedom, pp 232-233
Posted:
Is
forgiveness love? What is implied in forgiveness? You insult me and I
resent it, remember it; then, either through compulsion or through
repentance, I say, "I forgive you." First I retain and then I reject.
Which means what? I am still the central figure; it is I who am
forgiving somebody. As long as there is the attitude of forgiving it is I
who am important, not the man who is supposed to have insulted me. So
when I accumulate resentment and then deny that resentment, which you
call forgiveness, it is not love. A man who loves obviously has no
enmity and to all these things he is indifferent. Sympathy, forgiveness,
the relationship of possessiveness, jealousy and fear all these things
are not love. They are all of the mind, are they not? - Krishnamurti,
The First and Last Freedom, p 233
Tired of asking someone else for what you want? Not getting the results you desire? 
