B.Mawr Classical Review GOD as LOVE and flavors of Love

[Guest guest]

"Bhakti Ananda E.O.H.N." bhakti.eohn

"Vrndavan Brannon Parker" vaidika1008

Bryn Mawr Classical Review 95.09.16.html GOD as LOVE and flavors of Love

Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:50:09 -0700

Dearest Sandi and Jeffrey,

Rachel and Vrin,

 

God as Love is the Subect of Plato's Symposium, which gives an insight into how

the Helios worshipers understood and worshiped GOD in various Forms or Persons,

as

1) the Ultimate Object and Source of Love (First Person, Kouros / Krishna),

3) the Pervasive Spirit of Love (Third Person Holy Spirit / Paramatma),

2) and the Self-Sacrificing Incarnation of Love (Second Person, Redeemer).

 

(given in this order as presented in the SYMPOSIUM)

 

The SOUL / PSYCHE and Aphrodite were always considered to be FEMININE or

RECEIVERS / KENOTIC / PRAKRITI / YIN / YUM / SHAKTI / MARY / THE CHURCH /

ISRAEL / THE BRIDE etc, hence 'Bridal Mysticism'. In the realm of Bridal

Mysticism, God is EROS. The Platonic Greek theology of Love classically

explores the four loves of EROS, AGAPE, PHILOS and CHARITAS. A good summary of

this is THE FOUR LOVES by C.S. Lewis. These four and their interactions and

expressions are the subject of much Catholic contemplation. Many Catholic

saints and scholars have taught and written on the various flavors / rasas of

Love, and the contemplation and worship of GOD AS LOVE.

 

Most Vaishnavas and Christians today have no idea of the rich heritage of rasa

theology in the Catholic Tradition. Like Protestants, they think that the

Bible / Sastra is all there is, and don't avail themselves of the vast treasure

of traditional / Sadhu expositions or commentaries on the theology of love in

TRADITION.

 

Catholic Tradition has always acknowledged the importance of Platonism in

Christian Theology. This series on Love begins with Plato, and follows both

Platonic and Aristotlian streams of thought through Catholic Theology. My

opinion is that Aristotle deviated from the Guru Sastra and Sadhu of his

Platonic Tradition. While having some merit, European Christian emphasis on

Aristotle's work has also created many problems. In these essays, this writer

favors Aristotle and thus persues Love according to Dionysos (an Apophatic with

strong impersonal leanings) and Thomas Aquinas, who was also an Aristotlian.

 

In one sense, all of Western Monotheistic Traditon can be summed-up as a

theological struggle between the Platonists and Aristotlians. The followers of

Thomas Aquinas eclipsed the power of the Platonists in the Roman Rite, but

Catholicism is far more than just the Roman Rite. In great conferences of the

last 100 years, including Vatican II, the Church has acknowledged that Her

future is not European, but Asian, African and South American. She has called

for full inculturation of the Gospel, and the flourishing of the indigenous

Rites. This means that the present global dominance of the Roman Rites will

diminish, and with it, the Roman Aristotlian

emphasis will begin to shift. I see an eventual reversal in the Roman Catholic

trend towards Aristotle via Aquinas. As the Church is pulled towards a truer

embodiment of its universalism, by the rising power of the non-Latin Rites in

this century, it is inevitable that Platonism will finally eclipse the Roman

Rite / European emphasis on Aristotlian thinking. Platonism in the rest of the

Church will reinforce Platonism in the Roman Rites, restoring it to its proper

place in Roman Catholicism.

 

There are over 20 Rites in the Catholic Communion, and more ancient Rites in

dialogue with the Church, seeking full communion. The Roman, and Roman-related

Rites are actually a minority in the Universal Church. As the non-European

Rites eclipse the Roman Rites in global influence, since they are all Platonist

in bias, the Church will incline towards Platonism. This will improve its

prospects for positive relations with mystical Judaism and Sufism, which are

essentially Platonic, and open the door for restoring the relationship of the

Western Bhakti Traditions with those of the East.

 

Despite its Aristotian and other bias, this series of studies by Catherine

Osborne is an important examination of God as Love, God's Love, and the Love of

God in Christian Theology. To understand my work connecting Heliopolitan

Monotheism to the specific cultus of KRISHNA, it is essential to understand the

theology of LOVE, which is at the core of both the Platonic Judeo-Catholic-Sufi

and Krishna Vaishnava Traditions. So far i have been trying to get people to

look at the concrete historical connections, but the abstract and theological

connections are all there too. I would like to recommend that everyone

interested in the KRISHA / KOUROS connections read several works on GOD AS LOVE

in the Platonic Jewish, Catholic and Sufi Traditions.

 

Plato's SYMPOSIUM itself is the place to start. Debating THIS DIALOGUE on LOVE

has been foundational in defining the parameters of the discussion in the

Western Traditions for 2400 years. To today, Catholic, Jewish and Sufi

scholars freely admit that their theology of LOVE owes much to Platonism. To

understand the relationship between Platonism and Judeo-Catholic theology, one

needs an historical overview of the connections (the actual guru-disciple

lineages of the Jewish and Catholic Platonists are known), with theological

commentary. I recommend this series, and the work of Bernard MC Ginn on EROS,

as a good introduction to the subject.

 

Enjoy, all you beloved lovers !

 

In the Love of The Trinity and Trino-Sophia,

 

Pax and Prema !

 

your aspiring servant, Bhakti Ananda Goswami

 

 

Bryn Mawr Classical Review 95.09.16

Catherine Osborne, Eros Unveiled, Plato and the God of Love. Oxford: Clarendon

Press, 1994. Pp. xiii + 246. $48.00. ISBN 0-19-826761-4.

Reviewed by Wendy Elgersma Helleman, Erindale College, University of Toronto

(whellema (AT) credit (DOT) erin.utoronto.ca).

With this study of Eros, Catherine Osborne challenges contemporary and widely

held assumptions regarding eros and agape as two divergent, if not opposing

forms of love. The position articulated by Anders Nygren1 has found a receptive

audience for a number of generations. Osborne's argument, however, has to

contend with more than popularized Christian teaching, for non-Christian

popular understanding of erotic love is also far removed from the cosmic

spiritual bond of true eros for which she is making her case. Her

rehabilitation of eros proceeds by way of analysis of ancient and medieval

documents, but her work is more systematic than historical in its attempt to

account for divine eros in human relationships. Her primary thesis is that true

love implies a relationship which cannot be based on either the need of the

lover or the potential benefits to be derived from the beloved.

She defends her interpretation of "eros unveiled" by an appeal to the

Platonic/Aristotelian philosophical tradition which has profoundly influenced

Christian views of the love of God and human love. The position is developed in

a series of nine studies which originated as independent studies and could be

considered independently, yet are held together by a common theme and

interweaving of arguments; they do reinforce one another, as is claimed in the

preface (vii). All of them deal with the theme of love, approaching it in

different ways, using text-critical and literary, or theological, historical

and philosophical analysis; the arguments make frequent appeal to biblical

statements, the history of christian teaching, and teachings of the church. The

variety of approach makes for lively presentation and keeps the reader's

interest, but makes honest assessment of its accomplishment a more difficult

matter.

Osborne sets the stage for this discussion with the first chapter in which she

introduces models from Greek philosophy for regarding God as both subject and

object of love. She challenges the reader to consider God as a

generous-spirited erastes whose love for the world was not withdrawn after the

fall into sin, and is certainly inexplicable if analysed in terms of what he

might stand to gain from it (22-3). His arrows of love, like those of Eros,

strike without regard to the innate worth or beauty of the beloved. For God's

role as object of eros Osborne points to Aristotle's unmoved mover who

motivates by being loved (20-1), thereby as it were taking on a feminine role.

Of interest in this discussion is Osborne's realization that this portrayal of

lover and beloved needs to go beyond traditional Greek dualities of mortal and

immortal, human and divine, to take into account the biblical narrative of

original creation, fall into sin, and redemption in Christ (9-11) for an

accurate qualification of divine love as it characterizes different situations.

Nonetheless, Osborne's intent in this book is to arrive at a definition of love

which transcends all particular instances of love as it characterizes

relationships: friendly, sexual, romantic, or parental.

The second chapter focuses on the New Testament understanding of love as agape,

providing analysis of the term and its cognates against the background of

Septuagint usage. Osborne concludes that the ambiguous term "love of God" has

three possible meanings: love for God, love from God, and that inspired by God

(28-9) and can refer to 1) an emotion or feeling, 2) a type of behaviour or

action, 3) a relationship or bond between two parties, and finally, 4) an

external cause of loving relationships, such as an abstract concept or

personification of "Charity" presiding over relationships. She emphasizes that

none of these meanings threaten our understanding of God's nature as personal;

nor are different kinds of love to be distinguished according to respective

objects, since the various uses of the word cohere around loving relationships

(51).

Recognizing that Origen considered eros and agape as interchangeable terms for

love (73), Osborne in the third and fourth chapters examines Plato's Symposium

and Lysis (56-61) for a non-acquisitive model in which love is not motivated by

expectation of rewards. Here she most clearly challenges Nygren's claim

regarding eros as appetitive love, finding support in John Rist's analysis of

Platonism and Neoplatonism2 to argue that there is less asymmetry between God's

love for us and our love for God than might be supposed (66). Origen's portrayal

of love in terms of unselfish eros on the model of the bride and bridegroom in

the Song of Songs (74-5) is to be understood in terms of Gregory of Nyssa's

threefold analysis of virtue as motivated by fear of punishment, desire for

rewards, or for its own sake, only the latter being a worthy motive (77-8). To

make this claim she appeals to the portrayal of Socrates as an embodiment of

eros, the philosopher who, as lover, demonstrates the balance of need and

resourcefulness, the two parents of Eros according to the Symposium myth of his

birth and role as daimon (108-111). Accordingly she argues that the very

desirability of the object of love results from the capacity of Eros to

transform ordinary mortals into philosophers yearning for what they perceive to

be good; beauty is not perceived independently of love (116).

The next two chapters turn to the contribution of Aristotle in this tradition of

thought. The fifth chapter looks at his unmoved mover as object of love and

ultimate explanation for the movement of the heavenly bodies. Using Aquinas'

discussion in the Summa Theologica 126-33, Osborne concludes that the

Aristotelian position commits one to attributing life and consciousness to the

stars inasmuch as they are influenced by God. This discussion is not as clearly

relevant to the basic thesis as that of the next chapter, where Osborne explores

philia, comparing Aristotle's discussion of a politically or economically

qualified cooperative relationship in which reciprocal contributions were

expected (162-3) with that of Aquinas who recognized that Christian caritas was

more altruistic.

Chapter seven examines use by Clement of Alexandria and Origen of the term

philanthropia for aspects of God's love which have little precedent in other

religions or philosophies: the incarnation of Christ (175, 177), and the

process of God's self-revelation (165, 176). Hellenistic thought frequently

connected the concept with the ruler cult, referring to (condescending)

interest of the ruler in his less fortunate subjects. Stoics used the term for

divine providence (171-3). Osborne notes that both Porphyry and Plotinus

avoided use of the term, and thus anticipates a point made in the next chapter

regarding Dionysius the Areopagite's use of philanthropia to indicate special

events undertaken by God on behalf of the human race (197-9).

Turning to more recent questions of theodicy, Osborne in this eighth chapter

uses Moltmann's discussion of suffering love in action as limitation on God's

omnipotence (186-9), to contrast Dionysius' discussion of divine love.

Apophatic theology leads the latter to affirm, with Origen, the

interchangeability of eros or agape for divine love. However, Dionysius does

make a clear distinction between downward flowing, creative love and the

kenotic self-emptying love of the incarnation and atonement (191-2). Osborne

differs from Rist in her position that Dionysius' views are not to be traced

back to Proclus and other earlier Platonists; she argues that when Dionysius

speaks of God's love (as eros) he does not mention the incarnation (195) since

for him it is not part of God's creative love but reflects humiliation and

vulnerability on the part of God.

Osborne's discussion comes to a climax with the ninth chapter where she returns

to Dionysius' Divine Names to discuss the meaning of love (eros) when properly

used to refer to a cosmic bond or unifying force (209-10). The attempt made

here to distinguish genuine erotic love from more particularized or partial

love as it is connected with bodily eros most clearly reveals the philosophical

conditions to be met for accepting eros and agape as fundamentally

indistinguishable when applied to divine love (207-8). According to Osborne the

term eros is used properly only when applied to unified and unifying divine

love; when applied to partial or divided love at the bodily level it is used in

a secondary or transferred manner.

A concluding chapter brings together the main argument that love and needy

desire are not to be equated; rather, desire for good things follows on love.

Indeed, "the good" becomes attractive only with the eyes of love (220). In this

way Osborne has attempted to reconstruct the traditional reading, based on the

Symposium, which presents love in terms of desire. Turning the tables on this

tradition Osborne argues that blinded and whimsical eros promotes a positive

perception of those who in themselves are not lovable. Without eros we could

not recognize God for who he is, nor could he "see in us anything to merit his

attention" (221).

This collection of essays represents a noteworthy effort to rehabilitate Eros as

a symbol of divine love and a cosmic unifying force which transcends more

particularized relationships. Osborne can certainly count on scholarly support

for her effort to add nuance to the differentiation between agape and eros as,

respectively, Christian and pagan concepts of love. Indeed, her discussion

helps to call attention to the varied kinds of relationships of love

characterizing Greco-Roman society in antiquity, and is helpful for

understanding the views of Origen and Dionysius. Numerous features of the

argumentation are attractive: the consistent effort to avoid devaluing love to

the level of a prostitution which focuses on benefits or rewards expected, as

well as the depiction of the blindness of divine love to the inherent worth of

its object, a blindness from which many of us may derive comfort.

Having said this much, however, we must also examine some of the implications of

this position which are less attractive. In an arena of discussion which has, as

it were, newly discovered the motivating power of desire against a long

tradition emphasizing reason as the pinnacle of human achievement, Osborne's

spiritualized, if not intellectualized portrayal of true eros will strike many

readers as an attempt to turn back the clock, refurbishing an antiquated

Neoplatonic understanding of divine love for the present. Osborne's reading of

the texts, and particularly the reinterpretation of the role and speech of

Socrates in the Symposium is crucial to her position. In the attempt to come to

a definition of love which suits a variety of human and divine relationships

equally, I believe Osborne has underestimated the powerful role of beauty in

the dialogue, and neglected the strong tradition connecting goodness and

beauty, represented in the ideal of kalokagathia by which the Athenian

aristocracy measured itself. The result of her work is most clearly articulated

in the last chapter which presents divine love as a polar opposite to bodily

love, characterized as particularized and inferior, or divisive (209); "earthly

minded thinkers" can surely demand a more nuanced discussion of the links

between what is more commonly considered the domain of eros and the domain of

the divine. Yet the presentation here is clearly consistent with earlier

presentations where Osborne also refused to develop recognizable and legitimate

distinctions in love as it operates in varied fields of human experience, in

marriage, the family, or political and social alliances.

It is my understanding that the different terminology given for love in the

original texts, whether eros, agape, or philia is precisely significant in this

way, alerting the reader to different factors qualifying the nature of love in

the varied circumstances or stages of human life, whether we regard the love of

a parent for the child, romantic love or love for a spouse, for a friend, a city

or pet animal. Expressions of love cover the spectrum of human life, and each

kind of love has its own validity. The kind of divine love identified by

Christian mystics of late antiquity was strongly influenced by an ascetic

tradition incorporating significant aspects of Neoplatonic thought, and

accepting the language of eros to express its love for God; in opposition to

Osborne I would contend that sound Christian use of such language should not

force us to neglect valid application of a differentiated terminology for love

as it functions in the varied spheres and stages of human life. Sexual

expression of erotic love has its legitimacy, no less than the love of a mother

for her child, or the patriotic love of a citizen for his homeland. The peculiar

jealousy which characterizes such love must also be acknowledged. The strong

emotional intensity and particularizing focus of such love was the vehicle by

which Old Testament prophets like Hosea expressed God's devotion for his people

and his desire that they remain faithful to him as a bride to the groom to which

she has pledged her love; this imagery is picked up repeatedly in the NT,

especially in Revelation.

And finally the central symbol of Eros. Accenting the blindness of love has its

advantages. There are also clear disadvantages in representing the generosity

of divine love by appealing to a whimsical use of the arrow of love. Surely the

unpredictability of eros as it arises in this way would undermine the stability

of the love which is desired. Human beings have real needs, wants, and

vulnerabilities. Although true and lasting love is ultimately not to be

qualified in terms of needs being met, it is also significant that central

Christian teachings do not ignore those needs. To my understanding it is

significant that the biblical portrayal of love depicts it not only as a

relationship which seeks the good, but also a command to be obeyed. The

possibility of such obedience is best expressed in 1 John 4:19, "We love

because he first loved us." A development of this theme is probably one of the

more significant lacunae in a book which seeks to revitalize an understanding

of divine love in terms of a Christian tradition.

The book has been attractively produced, and benefited from exceptionally

careful proofreading. It is complete with an appendix on the positions of A.

Nygren and G. Vlastos, a bibliography and useful indices.

NOTES

[1] A. Nygren, Agape and Eros (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953). The work

was originally published in Stockholm, Sweden in two volumes, 1930 and 1936.

[2] J.M. Rist, Eros and Psyche, Studies in Plato, Plotinus and Origen (Toronto:

University of Toronto Press, 1964) 70-87, 213-16.