lovemuffin
τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
I think there are a whole host of topics that sort of vaguely connect to the title of this thread. About individualism and collectivism, morality, finding "purpose" in life, and so on.
I assume that everyone is aware, in their own life, of tension that arises sometimes between one's own internal feelings, thoughts, urges, aspirations and self-understanding, and what are perceived as external forces that constrain one's choices, actions, and self-image, whether morally, legally, socially, or even just physically (as in "natural law").
I presume that a mature person recognizes that there is a need for some kind of balance. An extreme in the direction of an egoistic individualism that gives no consideration to any "outside", to the reality of other people or cultural norms, is essentially sociopathic. We recognize occasionally the need to constrain our impulses by reasoned reflection on the consequences of our choices on others. On the other hand, an extreme in the other direction becomes authoritarian, fascist, legalistic, and excessive moralizing seems to destroy something beautiful in human nature as well. When I look at various religious traditions, I tend to see reflections that ponder the necessity of both sides of the dichotomy. In Christian terms, it might be the relation between "Law" and "The Law written on our hearts".
The question is: how does one find a balance between these occasionally opposed forces in life? Can they brought into harmony?
What follows are some of my own possibly tangled reflections, but you are welcome to respond without reading them, since they meander a bit.
--------
My present noodlings have followed from a combination of learning biblical Greek and reading some of the Vedas, and a couple of passages from those texts that are stuck in my brain:
Tapas
The word literally means "heat", and in its older usages seems to also have a strong sexual connotation. Passion, Desire, the "heat" that represents the dynamism of Life, the living impulse. There is also the similar word "Kama". In later Vedic and Upanishadic thought, tapas came to be associated with ascetic practices and self-discipline. Tapas is that inner energy which fuels the aspiration and realization of spiritual awakening.
There is already here I think a certain synthesis between the "internal drive" and "external law" that I was asking about, as between the literal and original meaning of the word and its later usage in Yoga as "discipline". The goal of liberation is, in a sense, the "external" law, but as a state of being represents the energy of all reality, so that in the Nasadiya Sukta, it is by Tapas the One springs into being. This ardor that is the wellspring of existence must be channeled constructively in order to reach the goal, but the goal is not itself a purely "external" requirement, since it represents the essential nature and dynamism of everything, it is the very source of the "cosmic order" of which we are also a part, and it a part of us. (cf. Rg Veda X, 190 above)
Teleios
The root word telos, from which we get teleology, means "aim", "purpose", "goal", and to be "teleios" is to have reached the goal, to be complete, finished. Perfect.
The first thing that was interesting to me is that in English I always tended to hear the word "perfection" within a context that focuses on flaws. But in Greek it seems possible to emphasize the possibility that the "perfected" state of a thing is not necessarily a flawless state from some absolute perspective. So for example in Aristotle the Telos of a thing depends on its kind. Here there also seems to me to be a possibly useful balance.
Human perfection is not the flawless execution of a moral standard. In the nature of human consciousness, in its inherent limitations, contingencies, its self-reflectiveness, and our awareness of our lack of knowledge and certainty, there is a certain always-coming-to-be, an un-finishedness (in-finite?) that is literally the opposite of Teleios.
And yet, in Jesus' words the "perfection" of human life lies in its magnanimity towards all that is, as God who makes it rain upon the just as well as the unjust. I think here there is both an external force, that of nature itself, so to speak, but in the understanding of the "law" also a limit to absolutisms and moralizing. If human perfection consisted of knowing absolute truths, there would be no need for the non-judgement emphasized by the Sermon on the Mount, or of forgiveness. Rather, they flow from our limitations, both of knowledge and of our capacity to manifest our own inner desires. As Paul says, "the things I want to do, I do not do".
From a certain angle, "salvation from sin", from separation from God, which is that which is ultimately real (however understood), is functionally similar to Liberation, Moksha. Perfection is neither the realization of a purely egoistic ideal, nor the enforcement of a purely social morality or the whims of a wholly other Divine. Of the latter, I reflect that "in him we live and move and have our being." The harmony between the internal and external flows from the realization that they are not truly separate from the "external" source of law, but that it is part of us and we of it, and the discipline of "law" is the nurturing of an internal heat (ardor, tapas) that is the dynamism of our coming to be. That human life is also that becoming, that aspiration towards what we have not yet realized.
I assume that everyone is aware, in their own life, of tension that arises sometimes between one's own internal feelings, thoughts, urges, aspirations and self-understanding, and what are perceived as external forces that constrain one's choices, actions, and self-image, whether morally, legally, socially, or even just physically (as in "natural law").
I presume that a mature person recognizes that there is a need for some kind of balance. An extreme in the direction of an egoistic individualism that gives no consideration to any "outside", to the reality of other people or cultural norms, is essentially sociopathic. We recognize occasionally the need to constrain our impulses by reasoned reflection on the consequences of our choices on others. On the other hand, an extreme in the other direction becomes authoritarian, fascist, legalistic, and excessive moralizing seems to destroy something beautiful in human nature as well. When I look at various religious traditions, I tend to see reflections that ponder the necessity of both sides of the dichotomy. In Christian terms, it might be the relation between "Law" and "The Law written on our hearts".
The question is: how does one find a balance between these occasionally opposed forces in life? Can they brought into harmony?
What follows are some of my own possibly tangled reflections, but you are welcome to respond without reading them, since they meander a bit.
--------
My present noodlings have followed from a combination of learning biblical Greek and reading some of the Vedas, and a couple of passages from those texts that are stuck in my brain:
You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
(Matthew 5:43-48)
At first was neither Being nor Non-being.
There was not air nor yet sky beyond.
What was its wrapping? Where? In whose protection?
Was Water there, unfathomable and deep?
There was no death then, nor yet deathlessness;
of night or day there was not any sign.
The One breathed without breath, by its own impulse.
Other than that was nothing else at all.
Darkness was there, all wrapped around by darkness,
and all was Water indiscriminate. Then
that which was hidden by the Void, that One, emerging,
stirring, through power of Ardor came to be...
(Nasadiya Sukta, Rg Veda X,129)
From blazing Ardor cosmic order came
and truth; from thence was born the obscure night;
from thence the ocean with its billowing waves...
(Rg Veda X, 190)
And the two primary words, as symbols, which get at this tension for me are perfection and ardor. "Perfection" is the greek τέλειος (teleios), and "Ardor" the sanskrit तपस् (tapas)(Matthew 5:43-48)
At first was neither Being nor Non-being.
There was not air nor yet sky beyond.
What was its wrapping? Where? In whose protection?
Was Water there, unfathomable and deep?
There was no death then, nor yet deathlessness;
of night or day there was not any sign.
The One breathed without breath, by its own impulse.
Other than that was nothing else at all.
Darkness was there, all wrapped around by darkness,
and all was Water indiscriminate. Then
that which was hidden by the Void, that One, emerging,
stirring, through power of Ardor came to be...
(Nasadiya Sukta, Rg Veda X,129)
From blazing Ardor cosmic order came
and truth; from thence was born the obscure night;
from thence the ocean with its billowing waves...
(Rg Veda X, 190)
Tapas
The word literally means "heat", and in its older usages seems to also have a strong sexual connotation. Passion, Desire, the "heat" that represents the dynamism of Life, the living impulse. There is also the similar word "Kama". In later Vedic and Upanishadic thought, tapas came to be associated with ascetic practices and self-discipline. Tapas is that inner energy which fuels the aspiration and realization of spiritual awakening.
There is already here I think a certain synthesis between the "internal drive" and "external law" that I was asking about, as between the literal and original meaning of the word and its later usage in Yoga as "discipline". The goal of liberation is, in a sense, the "external" law, but as a state of being represents the energy of all reality, so that in the Nasadiya Sukta, it is by Tapas the One springs into being. This ardor that is the wellspring of existence must be channeled constructively in order to reach the goal, but the goal is not itself a purely "external" requirement, since it represents the essential nature and dynamism of everything, it is the very source of the "cosmic order" of which we are also a part, and it a part of us. (cf. Rg Veda X, 190 above)
Teleios
The root word telos, from which we get teleology, means "aim", "purpose", "goal", and to be "teleios" is to have reached the goal, to be complete, finished. Perfect.
The first thing that was interesting to me is that in English I always tended to hear the word "perfection" within a context that focuses on flaws. But in Greek it seems possible to emphasize the possibility that the "perfected" state of a thing is not necessarily a flawless state from some absolute perspective. So for example in Aristotle the Telos of a thing depends on its kind. Here there also seems to me to be a possibly useful balance.
Human perfection is not the flawless execution of a moral standard. In the nature of human consciousness, in its inherent limitations, contingencies, its self-reflectiveness, and our awareness of our lack of knowledge and certainty, there is a certain always-coming-to-be, an un-finishedness (in-finite?) that is literally the opposite of Teleios.
And yet, in Jesus' words the "perfection" of human life lies in its magnanimity towards all that is, as God who makes it rain upon the just as well as the unjust. I think here there is both an external force, that of nature itself, so to speak, but in the understanding of the "law" also a limit to absolutisms and moralizing. If human perfection consisted of knowing absolute truths, there would be no need for the non-judgement emphasized by the Sermon on the Mount, or of forgiveness. Rather, they flow from our limitations, both of knowledge and of our capacity to manifest our own inner desires. As Paul says, "the things I want to do, I do not do".
From a certain angle, "salvation from sin", from separation from God, which is that which is ultimately real (however understood), is functionally similar to Liberation, Moksha. Perfection is neither the realization of a purely egoistic ideal, nor the enforcement of a purely social morality or the whims of a wholly other Divine. Of the latter, I reflect that "in him we live and move and have our being." The harmony between the internal and external flows from the realization that they are not truly separate from the "external" source of law, but that it is part of us and we of it, and the discipline of "law" is the nurturing of an internal heat (ardor, tapas) that is the dynamism of our coming to be. That human life is also that becoming, that aspiration towards what we have not yet realized.
