ANALYTICS OF LOVE

[suryaz]

The following is part of something I wrote as an undergrad

 

Yours Truly

 

sr

 

 

Diotima/Socrates in the Symposium (Plato 427-347 BC).

 

In the Symposium (Plato 427-347 BC) Diotima expresses the view that "love is neither good nor bad"; that love, 'Eros' is the motivating and spiritualising force behind all creative action (201a-b, 208e).

 

DIOTIMA AND ANCIENT GREECE

The ancient Greeks had many names and definitions for various forms of love. These range from kindness to living entities of the same species (physike) to a love appropriate among people (Euripides), and from voluptuous relations between men and women (aphros) to sexual desire (erotike). Further, Eros is defined as "a love of feeling and passion which ennobles the soul" (Wiener 1973:94). In the Symposium, (Plato 427-347 BC) Diotima identifies Eros as the highest manifestation of love. According to Diotima (203a, 208c-209e), love (Eros) is the universal motivating force that underlies the actions of every living entity, it is the pursuit of human virtue and eternal happiness (Diotima 207b). In this sense "love" (Eros) is not a God,1 love is the essential dynamism (daimon) associated with every living entity; hence love is essentially "spirit" (Diotima 202e; Waterfield 1984:XXVIII). As the spirit "love" (Eros) is manifest in all living entities' aspirations for eternal happiness, and "love" takes sanctuary in the inherent creativity of every living entity (Diotima 203a; 207a-c). Accordingly, love's quest for immortality is manifest in all forms of life through sexual reproduction. In the human form of life however, where the facility of reason is added, the medium through which love aspires to find immortality expands and love is displayed through the pursuit human virtue and aspiration for absolute happiness or divinity. Correspondingly, what is called "love" is the manifestation of living entities" creative potential and aspiration for happiness and immortality (Diotima 208c-e).

 

This loving happiness can be manifest as destructive, virtuous or divine. Or in other words, this all pervasive powerful, primeval force, fulfilling or un-fulfilling is manifest differently in people according to their desires (Aristophanes; Waterfield 1984:xi). In human society, the "highest manifestation of love is "love between soul and soul, without sensual desire" (Diotima :204a-b, 211b-c). Below this, are love of knowledge, moral homo-creativity and sexual reproduction (Diotima 208e-209b). The lowest manifestation of love is physical lust (Diotima 206e-d). Since a marked attribute of love is that love hankers and aspires for happiness and immortality, then falling in love, whether manifest as physical love, love for knowledge and love of wisdom are different manifestations in which people seek happiness and immortality (208c-e). The task, according to Diotima, is to direct "love" away from bodily lust toward philosophy and wisdom. In this connection Diotima (210a-210d) states:

 

"The proper way...for someone to start, is to love just one person"s body...next... he regards the beauty of all bodies as absolutely identical. ...Once he realises this, his obsession with just one body grows less intense and strikes him as ridiculous and petty. The next stage is for him to value mental beauty; (so that)...an attractive mind is enough to kindle his love and affection, and that's all he needs to give birth to and enquire after the kinds of reasoning which help young men"s moral progress. ...No longer a paltry and small-minded slave, he faces instead the vast sea of beauty,...love of knowledge becomes his medium in which he gives birth to...expansive reasoning and thinking, until he gains enough to ...catch sight of a unique kind of knowledge whose natural object is a kind of beauty I will not describe."

 

Through the above information we can see that Diotima's view of "love" as a basis "for moral and spiritual progress", centres on the idea that human beings can ascend through various levels of love towards absolute and perfect happiness. This is done by human beings transferring their affection from a lower object, creative or active medium of love to a more profound medium of love. The lowest medium for the manifestation of "love" is found in physical love; when aspiration for immortality is combined with creative physical love and/or the faculty of human reason, virtuous mediums for love are made manifest (Diotima 204b, 208c-209e). At the highest stage, the level of absolute wisdom, pure unadulterated immortal love is manifest through a life of philosophical contemplation (Diotima 208b, 210a-d).

 

What Diotima is suggesting here is that the attainment of a higher stages of "love" (Eros) are characterised by "procreation" whether human off-spring, knowledge or absolute wisdom (209e-211e). Further, it is this positive and virtuous creative potential inherent in human beings that perpetuates an ever increasing moral ambition and/or environment for advancement towards absolute goodness and happiness (Diotima 206c, 208e, 209c). The perfection of "love", in Diotima's process of purification culminates in the attainment of absolute goodness, revealed through a medium of eternal mystic beauty, manifest as absolute, indescribable perfect wisdom (209a-e, 210a-212d).

 

To more critically appreciate Diotima's assent towards mystic or spiritual perfection it is necessary for me to expand my discussion on the relationship between human desire and love (Eros) in terms of non-virtue, virtue and absolute virtue. Love within the realm of immortal happiness is the perfection of love and is manifest as absolute virtue or divine wisdom itself. Love in the realm of virtue is described as desire for, and admiration of wisdom, justice, courage good habits and human procreation2 (Diotima 206b-d, 209a). Love outside the sphere of virtue is defined as attraction to overt material constituents, such as physical strength, personal beauty and wealth3 (Diotima 210a-212a).

 

NON-VIRTUE, VIRTUE AND ABSOLUTE VIRTUE

For Diotima (206a-c), desire for immortal beauty is inherent in the creativity of all living entities, however "ignorant" people often mistake beauty to be a purely physical object. For instance when physical attraction is interpreted as sexual desire, in the context of homoerotic sex, or sex that is "incompatible" with procreation, an inferior expression of love (Eros) is manifest4 (206e-d, 212e, 216b, 217a-218a).

 

Diotima (211a-d), further mentions that physical love alone is a negative manifestation of "love"; as it creates obsession rather than broad-minded. Moreover, since physical bodily beauty is a temporary manifestation of beauty, then physical beauty alone is the wrong medium for immortality and the attainment of absolute happiness. Thus physical attraction in homoerotic sexual relations is incongruent and unnatural for moral and spiritual procreation as it not only has the potential to cause "enslavement", but upon the expiration of the physical beauty, or the inevitable death of the physical body, this form of love-making results only in grief and lamentation; and is therefore an un-fulfilling manifestation of love (Diotima 206e-d; Nussbaum 1986:185).

 

Although Diotima sees sexual desire as a mistake and unnatural in the context of homerotic sex, from Aristophanes' speech (191c) we learn that for some people to maintain physical and mental health some sexual activity is necessary. Diotima"s solution to these human biological and psychological needs and wants, is that human beings must attach "love" (Eros) to a worthwhile goal. Although (in Diotima's view), the most worthwhile goal in the human form of life, is to aspire for immortal happiness (203a, 210d), in the initial stage of moral and spiritual progress, people who engage in sensual activity can use the skills they have in this world to make advancement towards a higher manifestation of love5 (Eros) (206b, 209a).

 

Accordingly, Diotima (204a, 206c-e 209a) further points out that when human insight of immorality and human creativity combine, they form virtuous phenomena that range from sexual reproduction to human creativity in artistic expression, and from the creation of knowledge to the making of moral law. The marked qualities of these moral forms of procreation are that they aim to preserve the human species and/or happiness in human society6 (eudaimonia) (Diotima 199b-201c, 207a-208c; Waterfield 1984:xxvii). They "perpetuate admiration for wisdom, justice, courage, good social habits' and "love" in the sexual inter-personal relationship is aimed at human procreation (Diotima 206b-e, 209a-b). Through these moral and virtuous mediums of "love", human beings aspire to create greater happiness by using human physiology and/or human psyche as their means. Although "happiness" in this virtuous stage of moral and spiritual progress, is manifest as sensual activity, Diotima accepts the view that happiness as the "desire for good things and their proper usage" (eudaimonia) is a bona fide human state of progress on the path towards perfect wisdom (206c). For the perfection of wisdom, according to Diotima, rests upon the human desire to make manifest a quest to perpetuate goodness (206a, 207a). However the natures of sensual creativity and moral virtues are that they are worldly activities and are therefore temporary manifestations of goodness (208a). Since they change from moment to moment, the goodness and wisdom found them are no more than shadowy-reflections of pure immortal goodness (Diotima 211e-212a).

 

Diotima further explains, "just as physical beauty fades in beauty", so too human activities and institutions change, even our knowledge will change, the only thing that remains constant is that we hanker for beauty, and therefore the most worthwhile goal is to find immortal beauty (207a-208a). Human aspiration for absolute beauty however, is driven by the need for perfect love. But love can only be perfect when it is displayed through a medium of immortality (Diotima 207a, 212a). The medium of immortality is the attainment of absolute wisdom, absolute goodness (Diotima 207a).

 

In short, what Diotima is saying is that although beauty is the attracting factor, it is the permanent possession of goodness that ultimately gives the human entity eternal happiness. That which is called "love" is the manifestation of living entities' creative potential and aspiration for happiness and immortality (208c-e). In addition, it is "immortality which makes... love, a universal feature" (208b). Thus the universal human desire is not for beauty but it is for everlasting goodness and happiness. This everlasting happiness/goodness is attained through perfect wisdom (205a-206a).

 

Where absolute wisdom is "perpetuated", absolute beauty and absolute aspiration (the ever perusing aspect of love) are simultaneously manifest. For the wise the desired object of love (Eros) is the immortal procreation of perfect wisdom (Diotima 208c-209e, 210d, 211b). The procreation of perfect wisdom is marked by pure, unalloyed, undying, divine "revelation" (Diotima 204a-b, 211a; Nussbaum 1985:184). Thus for Diotima, love for wisdom takes preference over love for moral acts, physical creativity and reproduction as a means to attain perfection in human life.

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 05-18-2002).]

[suryaz]

In shot :

 

In the Symposium (Plato 427-347 BC) Diotima expresses the view that "love is neither good nor bad"; that love, 'Eros' is the motivating and spiritualising force behind all creative action (201a-b, 208e).

 

And although Diotima sees sexual desire as a mistake and unnatural in the context of homerotic sex, from Aristophanes' speech (191c) we learn that for some people to maintain physical and mental health some sexual activity is necessary. Diotima"s solution to these human biological and psychological needs and wants, is that human beings must attach "love" (Eros) to a worthwhile goal. Although (in Diotima's view), the most worthwhile goal in the human form of life, is to aspire for immortal happiness (203a, 210d), in the initial stage of moral and spiritual progress, people who engage in sensual activity can use the skills they have in this world to make advancement towards a higher manifestation of love5 (Eros) (206b, 209a).

 

The marked qualities of these moral forms of procreation are that they aim to preserve the human species and/or happiness in human society6 (eudaimonia) (Diotima 199b-201c, 207a-208c; Waterfield 1984:xxvii). They "perpetuate admiration for wisdom, justice, courage, good social habits' and "love" in the sexual inter-personal relationship is aimed at human procreation (Diotima 206b-e, 209a-b). Through these moral and virtuous mediums of "love", human beings aspire tocreate greater happiness by using human physiology and/or human psyche as their means. Although "happiness" in this virtuous stage of moral and spiritual progress, is manifest as sensual activity, Diotima accepts the view that happiness as the "desire for good things and their proper usage" (eudaimonia) is a bona fide human state of progress on the path towards perfect wisdom (206c).

 

And remember "love" means all forms of creativity/activities that are done with wise/virtuous intent. As such it is not an act that is wrong nor is love good or bad. Intent is the regulator of good or bad in this view.

If the intent culminates in abuse we can ask what of the moral content.

 

ys

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 05-18-2002).]

[Jagat]

Thank you for this elucidation on Plato. But I am not quite sure how it responds to my discussion of archetypal possession, and the analogy of anima possession to guru possession. This was the subject on which you promised to expand my understanding.

 

 

[xxvvii]

Love is oneness/difference (1/2), ie., connection.

 

Bhg.

 

Supreme bliss comes to a Self-realized yogi whose mind is tranquil, whose desires are under control, and who is free from sin (or faults). (6.27)

 

Such a sinless yogi, who constantly engages the mind with the Self, easily enjoys the infinite bliss of contact with Brahman. (6.28)

 

Because of perceiving the (same) Self (abiding) in all beings and all beings (abiding) in the (same) Self; a yogi, who is in union with the Self, sees everybeing with an equal eye. (See also 4.35) (6.29)

 

Those who see Me in everything and see everything in Me, are not separated from Me and I am not separated from them. (6.30)

 

 

[This message has been edited by xxvvii (edited 05-22-2002).]

[suryaz]

Originally posted by Jagat:

Thank you for this elucidation on Plato. But I am not quite sure how it responds to my discussion of archetypal possession, and the analogy of anima possession to guru possession. This was the subject on which you promised to expand my understanding.

 

 

The post was place more in response to your request to broaden you understanding about love. I have a problem with the parameters and the starting point in the [your] quest to find a middle-way. I fear many of us seem to negate the possibility of love in the realm of the physical or the non-virtuous (as the Symposium describes it) as such the parameters placed around interpreting love in the physical domain turns out to be of negativity only. Even in the realm of the physical there is a middle way, Jagat

 

You mentioned something about devotees looking back on activities and viewing them as bad. Are they bad I would ask? Or are they activities? Are activates although physical, mundane not pertaining to the divine by (those who dare to define the divine as one thing and not that) definition all bad? Is there not beauty in physical activities? What of the work of a carpenter, a shoemaker, an artist and inventor etc? Is there not beauty and good in such activities? Is there not beauty in physical bodies? I think there is, and it is not a new thing.

 

Poets have spoken about it since the time of yore, and especially in the time and language of lore.

 

All this brings to mind [for me] some of the poems I learned as a child. I cannot recall them completely by verbatim now but bits here and there as with the themes of such I still remember

 

I think it was Robert Louis Stevenson who wrote:

 

 

Daffodils

(again I cannot remember the author)

 

I wondered lowly as a cloud

That floats o’r high o’r vales and hills

Then all at once I saw a crowd

A host of golden daffodils

Ten thousand saw I at a glance

Shaking their heads in sprinkle dance…

 

Jagat - can you see some beauty the above? Can you feel the presence of love in it?

 

In another poem from memory (I cannot remember the author nor have I time to look it up}the presence of love in the vision of beauty is evident – The poet says:

 

Sometimes my heart is shaken with great joy

to see a leaping squirrel in a tree

or a red ladybird upon a stalk

or little rabbits in the field at evening

lit by a slanting sun.

 

It is the aching of the heart with joy upon seeing beauty in any realm whether it is in the non-virtuous, virtuous and/or divine that is the domain of love.

 

There is another one that comes to mind, and is more divinely directed (perhaps this will make the notion more clear). I think it was of James Joyce or maybe GB Shaw who wrote it, but my memory fails me.. I was in primary school when I learned these – so it was a long time ago

 

I see his blood upon the rose

And in the stars the glory of his eyes

His body gleams amid eternal snows

His tears fall from the skies.

I see his face in every flower

The thunder and the singing of the birds

Are but his voice…

 

 

In the realm of the Physical, love is there, it is in seeing beauty in things -or in other words, when one sees the beauty in things the eyes are of the salve of love. I do not think you will ever find your middle way if the approach places thing physical as negative. Things physical also have a middle way (see Diotima et al above and in short below). For me your approach seems a little unbalanced.

 

Love is found everywhere in human creativity (which is part of maha-maya). In the Symposium in the realm of the physical it is identified as non-virtuous. However in this view, non-virtuous does not mean it is not virtuous, wise or beautiful. In this view Love in the non-virtuous is the seeing of the beauty in, and the appreciation of the physical, the beauty in strength, fame, fortune, power, renunciation, the creation of beautiful objects for the good of human society (eg: chairs, medicines, shoes, houses, beds, social security networks, printing press, art, dance etc). This is beauty and love is of beauty. Love is also of virtue and of divine wisdom

 

So when we criticise something of beauty, [and because it is of beauty it is something of a linchpin in the human development towards the good] then we are killing love. We are not making spiritual advancement. To criticise all of maha-maya even when it is performing its function towards the good then that is killing love and the killing of one’s spiritual advancement. Rather we should look for the beauty in maha-maya’s function.

 

It is also true that:

 

This loving happiness can be manifest as destructive, virtuous or divine (in four ways - but love in the destructive is the killing of love and thus not of the good). Or in other words, this all pervasive powerful, primeval force, fulfilling or un-fulfilling is manifest differently in people according to their desires (Aristophanes; Waterfield 1984:xi). But it is not the thing of the physical that is bad, it is the negation of aspiration for "the good" developmet (abuse) and the negation of seeing of beauty in such that kills love.

 

 

In short:

 

When we promote abuse in any form we kill love and in so doing we kill our spiritual advancement.

 

It appears [to me] your thought pattern is of the hierarchical approach (alone), you must also add the lateral mindset.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 05-23-2002).]

[suryaz]

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 05-23-2002).]

[Jagat]

Hmm. I don't recognize myself very much in your assessment of my position.

 

My argument, briefly stated, was based on Jung's understanding of the archetypes. As you recall, the origin of that discussion was centered on the guru.

 

There is a very common thread running between the two kinds of relations, i.e., disciple to guru, lover to beloved. In Jungian terms, in one sense no person is truly an individual, but a conscious entity floating on an ocean of unconscious psychic contents. These psychic contents are filled with complexes that constellate as archetypes, or personified forms.

 

The individual ego identifies with a persona that he or she prioritizes over other possibilities, and then proceeds to suppress those other elements of the psyche that may oppose or challenge this prioritized idea of self.

 

Jung saw the integration of these unconscious complexes as the goal of individuation.

 

Now typical suppressed complexes include the anima for men (the female side) and the animus or male side in the woman. When such elements are suppressed, then the tendency is to project them outside of oneself. This of course happens most dangerously with "the shadow", the evil parts of oneself that we all try to deny. We project this evil externally onto Mayavadis, guru-tyagis, karmis, Jews, blacks, Arabs, women (in a combination shadow/anima), Chinamen, whatever happens to be convenient.

 

Because everything we see outside ourselves is to a great or lesser degree clouded by projections, we can never really know anything in truth. This is Jung's version of "Maya," the dance of veils.

 

Whatever else passionate love may be, it includes a healthy portion of anima-animus projection. Though in cosmic terms there may be nothing wrong with that--it is a natural part of the life process--nevertheless, it is Maya in the truest sense of the word.

 

If one understands the mechanics that are operative, falling in love can be a very fruitful exercise in self-understanding and self-realization. In other words, through maturing. And of course, even the experience of possession has a value that is almost mystical in nature--thus the preponderance of mystical/erotic associations in world religions.

 

Now I think that something closely parallel takes place in the guru-disciple relationship. The disciple projects the inner archetype of the wise man/woman, which arises out of the unfulfilled and indeed often suppressed instinct to seek and achieve wisdom. As a matter of fact, the more suppressed that instinctual desire has been, the more likely that the guru relationship will take on the character of a "possession" through intense conversion experiences, obsessive attachments, etc.

 

This does not mean that this is necessarily a bad thing. Here again, I was contrasting sexual love with this "guru" love. Western society places great value on "falling in love". It is encouraged, glorified, apotheosed and seen as a general "good thing." On the other hand, the love for a guru or wise man is often seen as the root of all evil; just look at all the cult hysteria. Love can be good or bad; taking shelter of a guru can also be good or bad. Depends on whether it is a healthy or a sick relationship, i.e., on whether the two partners in the relationship use it to transcend Maya or to deepen the illusion.

 

Boys and girls in love often look weird and do strange things. If this love becomes pathological, they will do really strange things. The same happens with disciples.

 

On the other hand, if the relationship matures, it will be very fruitful. For this to happen, the guru has to be really wise and not just putting on an act. The guru and disciple who are partners in a cheating process take each other to hell.

 

We in the West tend to go gaga over our gurus, because of the suppression of wisdom and the desacralization of the wise in our culture. In India, no one really ever forgets the human part of the guru. The sacred/mundane nexus is more fluid. This means that they can, hopefully, grow up.

 

This is all theory. Sorry to slip off into my topic, but it was because I am still trying to find out out what we are talking about.

 

Yours, Jagat

 

P.S. Your essay was good. Did you get an "A"? <font color=#dedfdf><small>

 

[This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 05-23-2002).]

[Jagat]

Sorry about that sorry post. Some really bad sentences in there. Gotta go pick up my son. Haribol!!

[suryaz]

Jagat,

 

I still have a problem with your view of the disposition of Maya as such negativity implies an extreme position; a position your quest for a middle way seeks to avoid. I still think you need a more lateral interpretation to create the openness the middle way seeks to provide.

 

Certainly from Jung's stand point the symmetrical male-to-male guru-disciple relationship and non-symmetrical male and female love relation are of contrast. They include the projections of (as you have mentioned above) "the anima for men (the female side) and the animus or male side in the woman." And therefore in the male-to male guru-disciple relationship there is dis-balance at the unconscious level.

 

However, within the realm of conventional truths (or secondary socialisation) there can exist the possibility of conditioned necessities. But this is a superimposition coming from the external and therefore not part of Jung's unconscious. Under such conditions the male-to-male guru-disciple relation cannot be made to "closely parallel" the male-female love relationship either

 

As no doubt you already know, that neither at the micro nor the macro levels can any reality be identical to another (otherwise it would be the other - so there would not be another to compare to). Otherwise put - the same attribute can only belong to the same subject/object in the same respect (This is first stated by Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1005b19). As such to attempt to make others comparable, or the same, by both Aristolian and Jungin definitions means ultimately to seek untruth.

 

You mentioned:

 

!"Here again, I was contrasting sexual love with this "guru" love. Western society places great value on "falling in love". It is encouraged, glorified, apotheosed and seen as a general "good thing." On the other hand, the love for a guru or wise man is often seen as the root of all evil; just look at all the cult hysteria. Love can be good or bad; taking shelter of a guru can also be good or bad."

One of the main reasons I think there is a Western aversion to Guru-disciple commitment (especially when it comes to the male-to-male guru-disciple relationship in the way we know it) has to do with Western primary socialisation. Western primary socialisation focuses on personal creativity (as opposed to commitment to ritual and tradition for the sake of it) as with the freedom and equality of every human being (with the exception of women until about fifty years ago) [Hummm I had to add that bit ]. I agree that in Western society there are mateship and mentor relations. But such relationships are regulated by the collective primary socialisation (as described above) and therefore do not (nor is it expected to) develop into a servant-master relationship but rather the teacher is a temporary adviser and student as potential independent teacher. So the guru-disciple relationship as we know it threatens the very essence of Western foundations. It threatens the freedom in choice making (if not places it in an extremely vulnerable position) of the individual.

 

ys

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 05-24-2002).]

[Jagat]

I am still not quite sure of your argument. Excuse me for being such a dense student.

 

I don't think I am being particularly negative when I say that Maya enters all relationships. There is a paradox, in that the numinosity of love relationships appears to be a window into the divine on a good day and, and the illusory nature of love's expectations a complete entanglement in hell the next. So I don't believe I am saying anything radical when I say that there is a maturing process that goes on here.

 

Of course, Radha and Krishna are deities that symbolize the coniunctio oppositorum of the psyche internally and also of the divinity present in love externally. I have said that even with changing social expectations, the symbol is rich in potential and not a dead one. (Radha is even a working girl with an equal role in the Vraj village economy--she takes the curds to market to sell.)

 

As far as the comparison is concerned: I am not confusing metaphor for reality. Metaphors, like symbols, are tools for understanding reality. All archetypal relations are fundamentally different, otherwise there would be no need for different archetypes. All would be one.

 

Your comments about external social conditioning are exactly what I am talking about. The West conditions us to accept one kind of craziness and warns us away from the other kind. But both kinds of craziness require similar kinds of maturation processes, i.e., growing out of "archetypal possession" to individuation.

 

However, archetypal possession is an important experience. Therefore, just as marriage is an institutional tool for working through the possession stage to maturity, so is initiation with the spiritual master. This is a somewhat personal theory and may seem to go against the sakshad haritvena idea, but in fact, I think that this is somewhat overblown.

 

Seeing God in everything is certainly a mystical experience on the deepest level. On the most mundane level it is a call to good manners and polite behavior. In special cases, it is a call to special reverence. One should see the deity in one's conjugal partner, and one should see the deity in the spiritual master (and indeed the spiritual master should see the Deity in the disciple, as Siddhanta Saraswati did). This applies to all the relations--parent to child, child to parent, etc.

 

Now Shiva will get frustrated with me when I repeat what he has been saying: yes, the goal is to ultimately hear the voice of God within and become the image and bearer of that voice, but it does not come at the cost of respect.

 

Iconoclasm is the path of the West. But iconoclasm is also an inevitable part of this dialectic.

 

So I think we agree, but I am probably wrong.

 

Jagat<small><font color=#f7f7f7>

 

[This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 05-24-2002).]

[Jagat]

Yes, finally, what I wanted to say was:

 

The numinous experience of the archetype reminds us of the presence of the Deity, but the real Deity is present in the individual reality behind that “idol.”

 

The spiritual master, like the father (or mother, wife, whatever), will I believe, inevitably disappoint. Because they are human, they fail. The injunction to remember that he or she is divine (sAkSAd hari) is not an appeal to turn a blind eye to their humanity, but a reminder to proceed carefully, to remember that despite the appearance of humanity, divinity is present and lies behind their humanity, as much as humanity lies behind the idolatry.

 

It’s something like a surgeon who has to remember that he is dealing with delicate nerves and blood vessels while engaged in an operation. This is not necessarily always conscious, but it must become the substratum of consciousness.

 

So to summarize this little dialectic:

 

(1) thesis -> idolatry

(2) antithesis --> humanity

(3) synthesis --> divinity (which then becomes a new idolatry). <small><font color=#dedfdf>

 

 

[This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 05-24-2002).]

[suryaz]

 

 

So to summarize this little dialectic:

 

(1) thesis -> idolatry

(2) antithesis --> humanity

(3) synthesis --> divinity (which then becomes a new idolatry). <small><font color=#dedfdf>

 

 

Jagatji,

 

Hmm I fear I aa becoming more and more confused as we go -

 

I am unsure what you mean by Maya. Are you referring to both maha and yoga maya as Maya or just one of these? Are you of the view that yoga maya is positive and maha maya is of the negative?

 

OK let us try again

 

In my view there is love in maha maya (as mentioned above), it is the seeing of beauty in things; not the want to possess for self-satisfaction or to control and possess another for the satisfaction of the Divine (if that is possible). Mundane as some may consider this view to be, for me it is the perception of beauty (in things of non-virtue, virtue and Divine) that is of the spirit of love. As we all know, even if one sees the divine in the prakat form as avatara one my not find love there. So it is the perception not the object. If the perceiver is of love than love is there (and love is only in that which is of good). The "Hell" in relationship (described by you above) is present when the destruction or death of love is present. As such a "hell" is where you have killed love (it maybe the long term or the momentary killing of love; but it is the killing of love). Therefore it has not beauty in it to be perceived. So love does not stop in Maha-maya and begin in Yoga-maya - but where the destruction of love is that is where "hell" (as you put it) begins

 

Further, my dear Jagatji, I am a bit worried with your methodology

 

The Hegelian dialect (above) is essentially based on the notion of symmetric hierarchial inter-subjectivity that arises out of conflict and thus negativity. In my view this is not compatible with the quest for a middle-way and maturity therein. The process of maturity in terms of that which arises out of conflict and depends on such for its further development can only bring about a conflict continuum. This in the final analysis does not perpetuate balance, it may give a temporary alternative. Moreover, the dialectic prototype requires the negation of some elements and the selective acceptances of others as a basis for maturation. This in my view, is not the best approach in the quest to find a middle way

 

Just some thoughts - hope they help

 

Ys

 

[suryaz]

I do not know how that happened above. I will try again.

 

So to summarize this little dialectic:

 

(1) thesis -> idolatry

(2) antithesis --> humanity

(3) synthesis --> divinity (which then becomes a new idolatry).

 

Jagatji,

 

Hmm I fear I am becoming more and more confused as we go -

 

I am unsure what you mean by Maya. Are you referring to both maha and yoga maya as Maya or just one of these? Are you of the view that yoga maya is positive and maha maya is of the negative?

 

OK let us try again

 

In my view there is love in maha maya (as mentioned above), it is the seeing of beauty in things; not the want to possess for self-satisfaction or to control and possess another for the satisfaction of the Divine (if that is possible). Mundane as some may consider this view to be, for me it is the perception of beauty (in things of non-virtue, virtue and Divine) that is of the spirit of love. As we all know, even if one sees the divine in the prakat form as avatara one my not find love there. So it is the perception not the object. If the perceiver is of love than love is there (and love is only in that which is of good). The "Hell" in relationship (described by you above) is present when the destruction or death of love is present. As such a "hell" is where you have killed love (it maybe the long term or the momentary killing of love; but it is the killing of love). Therefore it has not beauty in it to be perceived. So love does not stop in Maha-maya and begin in Yoga-maya - but where the destruction of love is that is where "hell" (as you put it) begins.

 

Yes - certainly the institutionalisation of anything binds personal expression and narrows personal freedom; this is especially so when the personal growth needs of individuals out grow the values and purposes of the institution.

 

 

Further, my dear Jagat, I am a bit worried with your methodology

 

The Hegelian dialect is essentially based on the notion of symmetrical inter-subjectivity that arises out of conflict and thus negativity. In my view this is not compatible with the quest for a middle-way and maturity therein. The process of maturity in terms of that which arises out of conflict and depends on such for its further development can only bring about a conflict continuum. This in the final analysis does not perpetuate balance, it may give a temporary alternative. Moreover, the dialectic prototype requires the negation of some elements and the selective acceptances of others as a basis for maturation. This in my view, is not the best approach in the quest to find a middle way

 

Just some thoughts - I hope they help

 

 

Yours,

sr

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 05-25-2002).]