July 31st, 2008
I read a book on “Soto Zen,” and I encountered the names of Huineng and Shen-hsiu in its presentation of the historical origins of Zen. They were both students of the so-called Fifth Ancestor (Zen Patriarch). Huineng became the successor, the 6th ancestor.
“Shen-hsiu believed that all beings possessed the Buddha nature. However, he regarded delusions (Skt. klesa) as something real, teaching that they must be removed gradually through strenuous efforts. His school of Zen is therefore termed ‘gradual enlightenment through real practice.’ The Zen of Hui-neng, on the other hand, holds that the Buddha Heart, which all beings naturally possess, is an indivisible union of the wisdom of enlightenment and meditation found in religious observances. Illusion and affliction are originally non-existent. Therefore, religious observances cannot be regarded as merely a means to rid oneself of illusion, but must be thought of as a practice of enlightenment, or enlightenment in practice. In Zen we call this ’sudden enlightenment – wonderful practice’ (J. tongomyoshu).”
Anyway, to continue with my rambling:
My research into the meaning of love, of course, led me to the Greek (eros/philia), Christian (eros/agape), and romantic (chivalric/troubadourian) ideas on love. At its core, love (whatever its form/manifestation) involves affirmation or approval or the simple recognition of value/beauty/good. (There is this play “Metamorphoses” that is a collection of Greek myths – based on Ovid’s work of the same title – that we read at Phil. Playhouse. I loved it. It’s very poetic, and I’d say, if executed well, could be a very moving meditation on love, in its various forms. I’d even say that the whole play is a prayer of sorts.)
Being some kind of a skeptic though, I had problems with the idea of the Christian “agape” (“unconditional love”). Well, I mean, it’s quite easy for God (if he/she’s really God) to have this “unconditional love.” But what about us humans? I mean, is it really possible to love unconditionally? What do we mean when we say that one loves unconditionally? What’s the point of having a discourse on the unconditionality of love when, as humans, we can never break away from our physicality (which means that we’ll always have “needs”)? I’m very suspicious of people’s assertions of their love’s “unconditionality.”
To my mind, love is precisely founded on a condition! When we love, it’s because we recognize the value/goodness/beauty of someone/something. The foundation of love is precisely this value/goodness that we recognize. We do not create it. Unless you say you’re God. (Of course, we must clarify that we’re not talking about good qualities here. Metaphysicians have asserted that the higher form of love (not eros) is directed more towards the existence of what is loved.)
How is it that we are able to love? What makes it possible for us to love?
Robert Johann, SJ (in his book “The Meaning of Love,” a metaphysical analysis of interpersonal love – of course, his foundation is Thomistic-Aristotelian, with a bit of Platonism) zeroes in on two: similitude and participation.
Simply put, the former explains that we are able to love someone because we find a connection – a similarity – between us and the beloved. It is as if we see ourselves in the beloved. (Think Narcissus.) But if love were simply founded on this, then what we call love is really a more sophisticated form of self-love. Love doesn’t really involve the transcendence of our egos. More, it is simply its expansion.
The second explanation for the possibility of love, the idea of participation, they borrow from Plato. If we are all creatures of God, then we have a common grounding. Thus, it is this shared grounding that makes it possible for us to love a person that’s radically different and unique from us (and not simply a projection of our idealized alter-ego, “another self”).
Later, when I encountered Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged,” I found myself agreeing with many of the points she presented about love, sacrifice, etc. (Rand argues for “egoism,” even its institutionalized form, free enterprise and capitalism. She’s against communism, socialism, etc.)
Later still, I’d encounter Nietzsche and I’d see reverberations of Rand’s arguments in his writings. (Of course, Nietzsche came way, way before Rand.)
Among Nietzsche’s statements: “Love of neighbor is simply a roundabout way of loving oneself.”
best regards,
ian