In other posts, and especially in the just the previous one, I emphasized the idea that all one needs is love. While that's sufficiently put for stating an ideal, it is a richly-nuanced and vast subject for a bit of elaboration. If the premise is true, that means the subject of love is the largest possible subject. So, to just leave the idea only as a song title, or bumper sticker slogan, doesn't necessarily lead to any of the reward from the rich understanding available.
First, a bit of consideration of love's largest implications. Since it is a simple concept without any bounds of time and space, it is our best vehicle for contemplating the eternal and the infinite. I've mentioned - what for me is - the very powerful phrase 'God is Love'. As soon as one tries to intellectually conceive of God (let alone write anything about him/her/it in an entire text of scripture), one necessarily has come up far short of truly comprehending God. Talking or thinking about anything for which words were not meant is all but pointless - perhaps except for the poetic use of metaphor. Literal attempts to capture that which can't be captured inevitably lead to the sorts of trouble that Religion has brought us. (This from a life-long church attendee and congregation member.)
From some experience with meditation, I know that thought is a distraction that keeps the goal of meditating just out of reach. Doing it right takes practice for sure, and it's helpful for me to remember to simply sit and hold onto the feeling of love, without accompanying internal narrative. Done right, all distinctions are obliterated, one becomes the whole. It reminds me of other activities where any awareness of time and space is irrelevant and not included: any of sort of creative or artistic endeavor, or any kind of deeply interpersonal exchange (conversation, teaching, play, lovemaking..), or any purely entertaining diversion, etc. All these have in common an important ingredient: the loss of self.
Yesterday, on Public Radio, I heard David Broder talk about historical perspectives on society's view of the self. Abbreviated here, the idea was discussed that, up until the blossoming of the Baby Boomers, even mention of the self wasn't heard much in common social discourse. Only in recent decades has the self been in focus, to the extent that now even our institutions are hindered from attending to the common good. Schools are encumbered with I.L.P.'s and I.L.A.'s, government is gridlocked and fractured by narrow, divisive and coercive agendas ("Keep your government hands off my welfare check"), etc. Odd as it may sound, while No Child is Left Behind, the children have been forgotten. Simplistically put, our pre-occupation with the self is keeping us from healthy functioning with regard to the other.
When one's attention is keenly focused on one's self there can't be any left to share with God or others.
Being inhabited by love, or giving one's self to love, necessarily annihilates the self as a distinct entity. The concluding thought in the previous post is that love is the grand, unifying principle. As such, it is simultaneously the biggest concept and the most personal one. When the self is lost or set aside, one is joined to the whole. To intentionally set aside one's self shouldn't imply a sense of loss (although we have become accustomed to feeling loss if our self is not our primary focus) - quite the opposite. Losing one's self is to make room for a switch in perspectives and something to be wholeheartedly sought and welcomed. Perhaps it would better said, giving one's self, or joining one's self. If all were joined in this manner, with love for the other - expanding many fold the space formerly occupied by one - so many of society's difficulties would disappear in a blink.
Some pray to God to make this to happen, especially at this time of year: Peace on Earth, Good Will Toward All. I've recited countless times,"...your will be done..." Isn't this like waiting for some sort of magic trick to be performed? And, isn't it like asking someone else to do my work? When we hear that revolutions must to start within, it refers to all the way within: the self making room for, and joining with the other. That happens, with intention and with attention, necessarily within one's own heart. I make it happen, you make it happen and only then, at these moments, God is making it happen.
Of course, all of these notions are as old as time and they have in countless instances been discussed with greater eloquence. Still if love (for the self and the other) is all-encompassing and timeless, then it's really about all that's worth talking about.... In fact, something really good is going to have to get a hold of me if writing another blog post will be worth doing. Many thanks for your time. With love - Bob
First, a bit of consideration of love's largest implications. Since it is a simple concept without any bounds of time and space, it is our best vehicle for contemplating the eternal and the infinite. I've mentioned - what for me is - the very powerful phrase 'God is Love'. As soon as one tries to intellectually conceive of God (let alone write anything about him/her/it in an entire text of scripture), one necessarily has come up far short of truly comprehending God. Talking or thinking about anything for which words were not meant is all but pointless - perhaps except for the poetic use of metaphor. Literal attempts to capture that which can't be captured inevitably lead to the sorts of trouble that Religion has brought us. (This from a life-long church attendee and congregation member.)
From some experience with meditation, I know that thought is a distraction that keeps the goal of meditating just out of reach. Doing it right takes practice for sure, and it's helpful for me to remember to simply sit and hold onto the feeling of love, without accompanying internal narrative. Done right, all distinctions are obliterated, one becomes the whole. It reminds me of other activities where any awareness of time and space is irrelevant and not included: any of sort of creative or artistic endeavor, or any kind of deeply interpersonal exchange (conversation, teaching, play, lovemaking..), or any purely entertaining diversion, etc. All these have in common an important ingredient: the loss of self.
Yesterday, on Public Radio, I heard David Broder talk about historical perspectives on society's view of the self. Abbreviated here, the idea was discussed that, up until the blossoming of the Baby Boomers, even mention of the self wasn't heard much in common social discourse. Only in recent decades has the self been in focus, to the extent that now even our institutions are hindered from attending to the common good. Schools are encumbered with I.L.P.'s and I.L.A.'s, government is gridlocked and fractured by narrow, divisive and coercive agendas ("Keep your government hands off my welfare check"), etc. Odd as it may sound, while No Child is Left Behind, the children have been forgotten. Simplistically put, our pre-occupation with the self is keeping us from healthy functioning with regard to the other.
When one's attention is keenly focused on one's self there can't be any left to share with God or others.
Being inhabited by love, or giving one's self to love, necessarily annihilates the self as a distinct entity. The concluding thought in the previous post is that love is the grand, unifying principle. As such, it is simultaneously the biggest concept and the most personal one. When the self is lost or set aside, one is joined to the whole. To intentionally set aside one's self shouldn't imply a sense of loss (although we have become accustomed to feeling loss if our self is not our primary focus) - quite the opposite. Losing one's self is to make room for a switch in perspectives and something to be wholeheartedly sought and welcomed. Perhaps it would better said, giving one's self, or joining one's self. If all were joined in this manner, with love for the other - expanding many fold the space formerly occupied by one - so many of society's difficulties would disappear in a blink.
Some pray to God to make this to happen, especially at this time of year: Peace on Earth, Good Will Toward All. I've recited countless times,"...your will be done..." Isn't this like waiting for some sort of magic trick to be performed? And, isn't it like asking someone else to do my work? When we hear that revolutions must to start within, it refers to all the way within: the self making room for, and joining with the other. That happens, with intention and with attention, necessarily within one's own heart. I make it happen, you make it happen and only then, at these moments, God is making it happen.
Of course, all of these notions are as old as time and they have in countless instances been discussed with greater eloquence. Still if love (for the self and the other) is all-encompassing and timeless, then it's really about all that's worth talking about.... In fact, something really good is going to have to get a hold of me if writing another blog post will be worth doing. Many thanks for your time. With love - Bob
No comments:
Post a Comment
The settings page indicates comments can be posted, but others have had trouble in the attempt. Let me know at rjworrall@gmail.com if either have trouble posting, or if you have a comment you would like to send along.