Lets Talk About Love

Question: Can love exist outside religion and/or spirituality?

The HH Dalai Lama says it can. I usually agree with him. He is the Dalai Lama after all. But I think I might dare to question.... is love something we can choose outside of our spirituality/religion....

And easy answer would be "yes" ... eg, I could say that my natural love for my children is evidence of that. But I think this thinking is scratching the surface.

I think there are (at least) two types of love; a selfish love and a selfless love. (Btw, I do not mean to use the word 'selfish' as meaning 'bad' ... it's normal, human and above all... healthy.) Iwould define the selfish type of love to be any action/feeling that somehow works it's way back to me: iow, I get something out of it.... a reward. Me working at a soup kitchen, for example; volunteerism might seem selfless, but then I get to tell people about it, which makes me feel good. Helping others can indeed be self serving.

A selfless love means I get nothing out of it, not even recognition. And it's a love that knows no hunger... there's no room for 'what about me'. Doing good in such a way that it's utterly secret and, perhaps, hard.

I tend to think that truly selfless love is impossible without some sort of supernatural inspiration. It's against our nature.

What do you guys think? In honor of Valentine's Day, lets talk about love!

(Thanks to Gilly for inspiring this thread.)

Doesn't Jesus say something to the effect that even an evil man gives good things to his children?

I've found it useful to classify love in terms of the Greek names for it.

eros
phileos
agape

I think that we do have to define the term love because there is love for ideas, objects, romantic love, platonic love, the love of parents, love of country, you name it. I have a hard time thinking there is a love that doesn't expect anything back because as anyone will tell you there is a lot of personal satisfaction to be had from doing what you believe is the right thing, whether or not anyone else will ever know or care or think that you are a fool. It is called honor. I don't need a god to inspire that, I think.

Sakhaiva wrote:
A selfless love means I get nothing out of it, not even recognition. And it's a love that knows no hunger... there's no room for 'what about me'. Doing good in such a way that it's utterly secret and, perhaps, hard.

I tend to think that truly selfless love is impossible without some sort of supernatural inspiration. It's against our nature.

Disagree. I think it's simply a civilized human behavior to do things altruistically for others. Otherwise, atheists would never behave lovingly or compassionately.

And I'm not so sure that what you call "selfless love" is all that selfless as Gilly suggested. Even if no one sees and you don't say a word to anyone else about what you did, YOU can still feel self-satisfaction. If you're religious, you'll feel that you're acting virtuously and pleasing your deity or deities. How's that selfless? There's still a payback for you.

Say more about what you see as a truly selfless act if you would, Sakhaiva. I'm not sure I know what you mean, nor why you feel that such requires supernatural inspiration--and what do you mean by that?

Anyone who has ever watched a great dog with the kids of "his" family knows that religion and spirituality are not necessary for love.
I have had many pets over the years and no one will ever tell me that love is a strictly human thing.

Oh, and naturally the Dalai Lama would say that love can exist outside religion and spirituality. Deities aren't viewed in the same way within Tibetan Buddhism as they are in theistic religions. Tibetan Buddhism like most branches of Buddhism is essentially atheistic although it relates in a sense to Mahayana Buddhism which holds the belief that the Buddha was an omnipresent being.

The deities of Tibetan Buddhism are more beings who have evolved via karma to levels beyond the human. They are more models for how people should or should not behave, but that's not quite accurate either. Simply because they're more reincarnationally evolved doesn't mean they're supernatural or deities as viewed in other religions, however. It's difficult to explain adequately.

Deity veneration is a very specialized branch of Tibetan Buddhism and not something that exists throughout it. Generally, a person interested in it must seek out a highly experienced mentor who will guide the seeker in the practice.

tmarie64 wrote:Anyone who has ever watched a great dog with the kids of "his" family knows that religion and spirituality are not necessary for love.
I have had many pets over the years and no one will ever tell me that love is a strictly human thing.

I'm not sure I follow; nobody more religious than a dog or more agnostic than a cat.

Love exists beyond faith, and certainly it is far to common for faith to exist without love. Love without faith is still beautiful, but faith without love is truly terrible.

No, I do not think one needs to be spiritual or belong to a religion to be able to act in a way, or fee what we call love (and to piggy back off of Dave's comment, agape and philia as opposed to eros). Altruism is not something which is found only in humans, as there are many examples of non-human species which practice altruism, at least in the form of aiding another creature in a way which is not immediately beneficial to that individual.

You are absolutely right, John.

Davelaw wrote:nobody more religious than a dog or more agnostic than a cat.

Sacrilege, Dave, just plain sacrilege! (Guess which species I'm fonder of.)

After my separation from my second husband, my dear cat Puffalumpafur would NOT leave me alone for a couple months. I was emotionally devastated by the experience and to refer to me as walking wounded would have been somewhat of an embellishment.

When I'd get home from work, she'd follow me about until bedtime. If I sat, she would demand to be on my lap or snuggle up next to me.

When I went into the bathroom, she'd wait outside the door until I emerged.

She slept on the bed with me every night, usually snuggled tight against my side.

I swear she sensed when I slowly began to feel stronger. Gradually, she went back to her cat business and ignored me to deal with it for longer and longer periods of time.

What a compassionate and loving kitty-being she was! I miss her so very much, having had to put her down due to complications of extreme old age. She was with me for almost 20 years and was devoted to me to the last.

Nope, no agnostic that cat. She was a follower of Jesus the Christ if anything.

(((((DOT)))))))

If only there were more true followers like your kitty.... what a beautiful world we'd have.

John T Mainer wrote:Love without faith is still beautiful, but faith without love is truly terrible.

Well said John.... so very true.

[quote="DotNotInOz"]

Sakhaiva wrote:
Say more about what you see as a truly selfless act if you would, Sakhaiva. I'm not sure I know what you mean, nor why you feel that such requires supernatural inspiration--and what do you mean by that?

I've been reading Thomas Merton again (No Man is an Island) and his discussions about love .... especially that phrase that has taken hold of my brain (love that knows no hunger) .... have begun haunting me.

Thinking of Biblical examples: "Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men". This is pretty hard stuff to swallow. In fact... it is very difficult to be a servant when no one says 'thank you.'

Sakhaiva wrote:...in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.

I've read a good deal of Merton. Cool dude. I like a lot of the way he thinks, but that is just waaaay too Trappist monkian for me, simply doesn't resonate with me anymore.

Wow! I guess I'm more of a Thelemite than I thought I was.

It seems to me ridiculous to count others more significant than oneself. How impotent! Why give away your power through humility when those others probably want nothing whatsoever from you, not even your regarding them as more significant than yourself? As for looking to the interests of others, nope, none of your business unless they specifically ask your assistance, advice, etc.

There's a bit from Aleister Crowley's The Book of the Law, which is kind of the scripture of Thelema, that is relevant here, I believe. It's "Every man and every woman is a star." What that means as I understand it--and mind you I am not speaking for Thelema or Thelemites when I say this but only for me, The Dot--is that we each must be as true to ourselves as possible and live our lives as responsibly and well as we can. That would include helping others who request our help or whom we can aid by more indirect means such as donating to charities. So, it's not at all selfishly doing whatever we want with our lives and the hell with everyone else.

We each are lovely and brilliant as individual stars if we follow our own life's purpose and walk our individual path. If we do so, then we will honor and respect the best in each other as we go through life, not being humble because humility is a betrayal of the Essential Self, both a pretense and a falsehood. There's another term for that within the context of Thelema, but I'll not mention it because it's so often understood quite wrong by those unfamiliar with the overall Thelemic context.

Nope, I simply can't accept Merton's view. As I said, that probably shows how very far I've gone from the Christian mindset.

I am not, however, implying in any way that there's something wrong with how Merton thought or yourself, Sakhaiva, for finding that model helpful and useful. If thinking that way enables you to be kinder to and gentler with our fellow beings and Mom Earth, WONDERFUL!

Sakhaiva wrote:

I've been reading Thomas Merton again (No Man is an Island) .'

... John Donne

No man is an island, entire of itself
every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main
if a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were,
as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were
any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind
and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls
it tolls for thee.

DotNotInOz wrote:

Davelaw wrote:nobody more religious than a dog or more agnostic than a cat.

Sacrilege, Dave, just plain sacrilege! (Guess which species I'm fonder of.)
.

I'm a cat person as well. You've misunderstood me. Dog's worship their humans as deities; Cats are agnostic as to human's divine origins.

I've always loved that poem, Dave. On the other hand, now that I've gotten old and cranky, I think that some people are lost to the main without dying and that others are not mourned when they die for good reason. Loving or valuing all of humanity is easy in the abstract but hard when it comes to individuals, especially when some of those prey on their own kind or weaker animals. We as a species are very big on culling our herds/other species - breeding in and out specific traits/destroying the vicious - but somehow feel that is not appropriate within our own herd.

gillyflower wrote:I've always loved that poem, Dave. On the other hand, now that I've gotten old and cranky, I think that some people are lost to the main without dying and that others are not mourned when they die for good reason. Loving or valuing all of humanity is easy in the abstract but hard when it comes to individuals, especially when some of those prey on their own kind or weaker animals. We as a species are very big on culling our herds/other species - breeding in and out specific traits/destroying the vicious - but somehow feel that is not appropriate within our own herd.

don't get me started-I am pretty much the social darwinist-who thinks our safety nets are preventing the kind of crisis that would lead to the next step in evolution

Biologic evolution or social evolution? If you speak of the advancement of our people, the social safety net is a part of our growth and maturity. Dealing with the criminal element and the addicts that abuse the system is part of our social maturation. Parasites always exist, and for any culture dealing with relative plenty, controling them becomes an issue.

Biologic evolution is not something you really want to see applied to us right now. Biology equipped us to have a dozen children of which the lucky family might see three live to maturity. Biology accepts such comprimises as sickle cell anemia, one in four children being sick for life so that two in four children will have immunity to malaria (one in four gets unlucky and dies from malaria one hot spring).

Those who speak of the wonders of culling the herd have never seen how it changes people to bury child after child. The places in this world where that kind of crushing poverty exists are the places our troops got sent when I was in the army the first time. If that is the kind of humanity you want to be our future; a future where pimps and bandits are the successful, then you have a very different future for the race in mind than I do.

John T Mainer wrote:Biologic evolution or social evolution? If you speak of the advancement of our people, the social safety net is a part of our growth and maturity. Dealing with the criminal element and the addicts that abuse the system is part of our social maturation. Parasites always exist, and for any culture dealing with relative plenty, controling them becomes an issue.

Are you sure though, that current social safety nets are part of our growth and maturity?

I do agree that parasites always exist, crime always exists, and addicts always exist. As well as legitimate people who are down on their luck. A reasonable person would wish to help those who are truly deserving of the help, and minimize the parasites, the criminals and the addicts ability to take advantage of the system. The system was set up to take care of people who are truly deserving of it.

John T Mainer wrote:
If that is the kind of humanity you want to be our future; a future where pimps and bandits are the successful, then you have a very different future for the race in mind than I do.

Unfortunately, John, it's not a matter of wanting it to be our future, it's our now. Sure, the old days of the highwayman are past, but a newer version of the criminal has emerged. It's easier for a criminal to bill medicare fraudulently than it is for the legitimate doctor to get reimbursed for services. It's easier for the welfare mother to keep having kids in order to qualify for state aid, than it is for the family that has been out of work due to health issues for the last year. It's easier to take advantage of the system, than it is to use it for the purposes that it was originally intended.

It makes people like Dave and I think that maybe the solution is to get rid of the whole thing and start anew. It's a failing system. Not one to model other systems off of, or to add to.

all

Davelaw wrote:

Sakhaiva wrote:

I've been reading Thomas Merton again (No Man is an Island) .'

... John Donne

Yes, it's true that Donne wrote the poem. However, Thomas Merton also wrote a book by that title.

All wrote:

It makes people like Dave and I think that maybe the solution is to get rid of the whole thing and start anew. It's a failing system. Not one to model other systems off of, or to add to.

Replacing it with another system requires imposition, an act of revolution or the reforms of a tyrant. Democracy dies under such therapy. Tyrany is a wonderful tool for war, and a terrible tool for peace. While idealists may start revolutions and establish tyrany, it is opportunists that seize power, and what they reshape societies into does not resemble the utopian dreams that were the justification for the revolution.

Only by democracy; only by force wielded with the consent of, and taxes leveled with the consent of the people so governed, can a government exist which is even theoretically responsible to the people governed.

Tyrany of set duration may be necessary to defend democracy in times of total war, or serious disaster. Test of any society is the readiness of that leadership to relinquish that power at term end, and of the mechanisms of the state to demand it.

John T Mainer wrote:
Replacing it with another system requires imposition, an act of revolution or the reforms of a tyrant. Democracy dies under such therapy. Tyrany is a wonderful tool for war, and a terrible tool for peace. While idealists may start revolutions and establish tyrany, it is opportunists that seize power, and what they reshape societies into does not resemble the utopian dreams that were the justification for the revolution.

Only by democracy; only by force wielded with the consent of, and taxes leveled with the consent of the people so governed, can a government exist which is even theoretically responsible to the people governed.

Tyrany of set duration may be necessary to defend democracy in times of total war, or serious disaster. Test of any society is the readiness of that leadership to relinquish that power at term end, and of the mechanisms of the state to demand it.

John, what we have now is a tyranny. The force is not wielded with the consent of the people. Taxes are not leveled with the consent of the people. What we have is the illusion of freedom, not freedom. It is just not as bad yet, as it could be. It has not yet hit the point where it is bad enough that the a revolutionary alternative is better than living under the rule of the (so called) "representatives", but it's been less than 250 years. Give it time.

all