No, it's not the Beatles song, but that was a great song.I was over at Budding Buddhist and checked out the link to her hubby's blog, which has an entry about the message of Jesus: love. As I mentioned there, I was recently reading this book about how religious language had been hijacked and distorted, held hostage by fundamentalist rhetoric, and I was thinking also about how if you had to boil the Gospel and the life and message of Jesus down to a single word, it would be LOVE.
So I was visualizing this like a an advertisement - just a big billboard or television spot that says LOVE, and it occurred to me that a good analogy of how this message is distorted is how in some commercials they have this fine print at the bottom of the screen. You know, where if you could freeze the image and get out a magnifying glass you might have a chance to read it. That's the way the message has been changed.
Instead of LOVE... it's LOVE*, where the asterisk directs you to the fine print "Not applicable in all faiths. Offer invalid for those with the wrong sexual orientation. Must comply with the rules and interpretations of...blah blah blah."
Yet as Budding Buddhist's hubby, Freedom Authority, cites from 1 Corinthians chapter 13:
Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, (love) is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.Speaking of that Beatles song, I think it compliments Paul's insight:
There's nothing you can do that can't be doneIt's easy?
Nothing you can sing that can't be sung
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game
There's nothing you can make that can't be made
No one you can save that can't be saved
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be in time
There's nothing you can know that isn't known
Nothing you can see that isn't shown
Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be
[At least in principle. That is, it is simple. But is it really easy? extra clarification added thanks to Tom's comment :o) ]
But putting it into practice? This is where we can really trip over the ego. Rather than "I will love my neighbor", or even worse, "I will try to love my neighbor", try "Love my neighbor." That is why I think it's so helpful for Christians to invoke God's love, rather than their own. My own love, for example, might be stingy. It might be conditional, forgetful, inconsiderate, or limited. But the image of love coming from Being itself, from THAT WHICH IS, is one of love that is always present, always open, always accepting, and that never runs out. Similarly in Buddhism we talk about opening ourselves to the realization of/embodiment of limitless compassion and wisdom, but the specific figure of God in the Western sense is lacking, which is why other images, such as the Eternal Buddha or Amitabha, can be so powerful.
All we need is love? So go share it with someone!
Your post reminds me of a movie, from about 2001, I recently saw for the first time, Donnie Darko, where the protagonist [played by Jake Gyllenhaal] is confronted with a religious-like movement that claims everything can be put on a spectrum with FEAR on one end and LOVE on the other. Here, as you say, the idea of LOVE was being hijacked. LOVE ended up being used as a baton to beat people with, to keep people in line with a narrow point of view, dividing us up between those that follow a religious creed and those who don't.
ReplyDeleteEventually, the movie moves to a place where, I think, it is not harsh toward it's 'fundamentalism' straw dog. Donnie Darko is revealed to be wrestling with his own 'FEAR and LOVE' dicodomy and makes some very curious and likely wrong decisions along the way.
I don't know that things are easy. Making judgments are the way our minds work. Should I turn left? turn right? Drive straight ahead? Eat the banana? Marry the woman? Set the alarm clock?
Well, given what Paul says about love, I don't think it's too unclear what we are referring to here as love - it is about selflessness, wholeness, and empathy. That is why it is so interesting that Christ says to love others as we love ourselves - there are no clauses or exclusions. I have seen Donnie Darko, and it does give a good parody of certain kinds of fundamentalist thinking.
ReplyDeleteI don't know that things are easy. Making judgments are the way our minds work. Should I turn left? turn right? Drive straight ahead? Eat the banana? Marry the woman? Set the alarm clock?
Are as easy as what? What does turning left or eating a banana have to do with how you regard other sentient beings? Evaluating and estimating and the like have nothing to do with the command Christ gives to love. That's the challenge. Simple and easy are not synonyms. That's where I would disagree with the Beatles lyrics, and why I left it out.
"But he's a..." "But she tried to..." "But they are all..." Doesn't matter. LOVE him. LOVE her. LOVE them. Doesn't mean you have to condone their behavior, or support their self-destructive or other-destructive habits or lifestyle. But we must love them.
That is, we aren't jealous of them, nor do we act pompous toward them, nor inflated, nor are we rude to them, nor do we seek only our own interests, nor are we quick-tempered toward them, nor do we brood over injury they may give us, nor do we not rejoice in their failures or shortcoming. This is the same as the four immeasurables of Buddhism: loving-kindness, sympathetic joy, equanamity, and compassion.
You don't have to accept that challenge, but there it is. Wake up early or don't. Have a banana for breakfast or corn flakes. Turn whichever direction you like, the issue is how you treat those you that your path leads you to.
The more important thing is to notice when you start turning into the very thing you say you despise with fully as much venom and gile and bile.
ReplyDeleteA world of pablum is not a wonderful world, tiny. Even in universes as small as a blogsite, an autocratic ruler might stand up on his tiny hind legs and demand concordance to the rules he most-tightly embraces.
Frankly, I don't understand Paul's lyrics. And, knowing Paul's other works, and having read some of his rather terrible poetry, I don't think we should expect to find much there in the way of profundity.
The more important thing is to notice when you start turning into the very thing you say you despise with fully as much venom and gile and bile.
ReplyDeleteI am most humble and earnest when I ask: What are you talking about? What, exactly, is more important than what? I am not sure what you are discussing. The point I was passing on and agreeing with is that the overriding message in the Gospels is love, and particularly love as defined by the verses cited from 1 Corinthians. Who is talking about despising? What venom or gile/bile are you referring to?
A world of pablum is not a wonderful world, tiny.
It may be your opinion that the Christian commandment to love is "pablum", since that was the subject of the post and I see no other subject mentioned in reference, but I disagree. I do not require anyone agree with anything I write here. Whatever reaction people have is legitimate. In any case, I do not know if you are referring to to the commandment to love "pablum", but such an assessment, devoid of other comment, would sound at little shallow and dismissive, much like those who deride Buddhism's teaching about emptiness as a nihilistic teaching that nothing is real. I don't know if that is what you meant or not, though, as the brevity of your reply leaves much unclear. In any case, at least the post provoked some kind of thought or reflection, which is a good thing. :^)
Even in universes as small as a blogsite, an autocratic ruler might stand up on his tiny hind legs and demand concordance to the rules he most-tightly embraces.
Again, what on Earth are you referring to?
Frankly, I don't understand Paul's lyrics. And, knowing Paul's other works, and having read some of his rather terrible poetry, I don't think we should expect to find much there in the way of profundity.
My reference to "Paul" was directed at the Apostle, whose definition of love in the spiritual/divine sense was quoted in the original post and then paraphrased in my first reply , which was an attempt to clarify the goal and substance of the post. As I said in that reply, I am not telling people to take up Christ's challenge, I am just discussing it and putting it "out there", just as I do for teachings and inspirational themes from Buddhism, humanism, etc.
Oh, forgot to add: In any case, as far as the song lyrics are concerned, not only am I asking if love as presented in the Beatles song *really* easy in practice (it's not), but I also take another shot at the end - if it's so easy and all we need is love, then share it! That is, it's great to talk the talk (or sing the song), but we need to walk the walk.
ReplyDeleteFar be it for me to debate Christ, but he also wrecked the stands of the merchants and money-changers outside the church in Jerusalam. The LOVE faucet must have been turned off.
ReplyDeleteA *simple* message of LOVE isn't easy. The Fundamentalists, for all the grief we give them from the Left, do truly believe, most of them, that they are onto something -- that their prescription for love, that excludes other behaviors, is both what is called for in the Bible and is The Way.
Most people's LOVE is conditioned, in some way or another, and that is the only thing they know. They have no other definition for the word.
But even if there is an Ivory-pure LOVE, LOVE like LIBERTY, immediately turns toxic when you tightly embrace it, enshoud yourself with it and demand that others live up to your standards. LOVE is a souffle, best cooked quietly.
Far be it for me to debate Christ...
ReplyDeleteWhy?
but he also wrecked the stands of the merchants and money-changers outside the church in Jerusalam. The LOVE faucet must have been turned off.
Ahh, well, I guess we can disregard that last statement as you said you don't want to debate Christ, as we wouldn't want to have a one-liner out there without any discussion or context implying your pre-determined conclusion. ;^)
A *simple* message of LOVE isn't easy.
I didn't say it was easy. I said that while the message was simple, that is, it is direct and unambiguous, the practice is challenging. To be open, accepting, and to genuinely care about the welfare of all people is not easy. But, that doesn't change the fact that such a commandment is the central premise of Christ's teachings. There have been 2000 years of elaboration, yet the basics, most notably outlined in Matthew 25 and 1 Corinthians 13, are still primary.
The Fundamentalists, for all the grief we give them from the Left, do truly believe, most of them, that they are onto something -- that their prescription for love, that excludes other behaviors, is both what is called for in the Bible and is The Way.
I don't doubt their sincerity, but as I pointed out, for many of them their strategy is to put in exceptions, limitations, and other clauses to get around the directive to love. So, instead of patience, mercy, charity, service, etc, there is the opposite. One of the first things that made me question my own fundamentalist upbringing was, in fact, the way that people wanted to do mental and semantic gymnastics to put exclusions on a message of inclusion. But even among many "fundies", there is still a clear distinction between not liking a behavior and loving the person, and I know many who are terribly dismayed with the hatred of their fellow "brothers and sisters" in the "name of Christ".
Most people's LOVE is conditioned, in some way or another, and that is the only thing they know. They have no other definition for the word.
So? Christ taught by example. And again, there are entire passages such as the one's mentioned which give definitions of how love behaves. After all, over the last few decades many fundie movements have been redefining many religious words in their own terms, but that doesn't mean they should be abandoned. Besides, in Christianity, fundie or no, the idea of love is so central that it has been studied exhaustively, including different kinds of love. The type of unconditional love being referred to here is certainly not alien to Christianity, and is distinguished from other meanings of love by the specific term "agape".
Moreover, isn't a goal of Buddhism to help liberate people from such limiting "conditioning"? *wink*
But even if there is an Ivory-pure LOVE, LOVE like LIBERTY, immediately turns toxic when you tightly embrace it, enshoud yourself with it and demand that others live up to your standards.
Except that the kind of love we are discussing, in the Christian sense of agape, is not demanding, nor exclusive. It asks nothing, and gives everything. As I have said, it really sounds like a summary term for the four immeasurables of loving-kindness, sympathetic joy, equanamity, and compassion.
LOVE is a souffle, best cooked quietly.
It can only have meaning in terms of relationships with others, but it should be humble, as per the other examples.
---
OK, so what was the other stuff in reference to? In the earlier reply? I'm still confused.