Saturday, January 30, 2021

The Meaning of Love

There are so many ways in which we use the word “love” these days that many of us cannot explain what exactly the meaning of love is. We “love” just about anything – our wives or husbands, our children, the cat or dog, the car and the house, KFC, or McDonalds… and we also say we love God. In all this confusion we also do not know if love is an emotion or something else, but we think we can switch it on and off depending on our current mood.

Growing up there were two things I was taught – ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ (for those who are reading carefully – the question here is: what does that even mean?) and ‘God so loved the world that He gave His only Son’. These two Biblical quotations were separate in my mind – on the one hand I must love my neighbour somehow and on the other hand God always loves me no matter what. This separation, I believe, is due to the illusion that we are separate from each other and from God – because that is what our eyes tells us. This is not true, because there is also the following thing that is taught – we must become more like Jesus and Jesus lives in our hearts.

As a child I could not bring these points together and plainly accepted it, but as an adult it bothered me. In Hinduism it is believed that God is not separate from us and neither are we separate from each other – the interconnectedness of all. God is a part of us, or we are a part of God, and by default we are a part of each other. In Judaism this is called ‘the Divine Spark in all of us’. If Jesus lives in our hearts, if God is a part of all beings, then we cannot live as if we are separated from each other – we need to love each other as if God Himself is standing in front of us.

Loving your neighbour (and to make this clear – neighbour does not only mean the person next to you but all beings you meet including enemies, animals, insects and so on) thus means loving your neighbour as God loves you. And, from a purely Christian point of view, God loves you with sacrifice. Now we can debate about how cruel it would be if we sacrificed our children for others and that we do not like this idea of a God killing His own Son. But to think like that is to miss the point entirely (no really, you should not sacrifice your children). From where I stand it does not matter whether the crucifixion happened or not (I am not saying it did not), what matters is that if you have never loved someone (including your spouse) until it hurts (not by actually hurting yourself or others but by giving things up that means a lot to you) then you have not really loved yet.

So now we can return to the question asked earlier – what does it even mean to love someone as you love yourself? In the simplest terms, it means that if you love to eat a big healthy meal (or even unhealthy for that matter) you would not give the homeless man in the street just dry bread and milk. Because, if you were that homeless person, even if you would be glad to receive the dry bread and milk, you would wish that someone would give you a big healthy meal. (Again, it is beside the point whether the homeless person should work or not – I will write about this in a later blog).

If you think that most of this is obvious then the question is – why do more of us, especially those of us who see ourselves as spiritual or religious, not do this? The answer is that it hurts, we do not like to make such sacrifices and we do not believe that we are a part of God. Before any fingers points at me – yes, I have tried it many times; I sort of got it right once or twice, I failed multiple times. Continuous effort is the key. This is one of many reasons why I write about it – to spread awareness and to encourage not only others but also myself.

Love does not stop when you said you will pray for the other person or when you gave the bare minimum, but I am also not saying that you must give so much that you do not have anything left. That is also not loving yourself, never mind the other. This is another point that needs to be addressed. While reading a book on the essence of Buddhism the author made an interesting point saying that it is all good and well that we should love our neighbour as ourselves, but what if the person does not love himself? What if the person is depressed? It will then mean that the depressed person, loving the other as he “loves” himself, will wish depression on that person. He then suggests compassion and loving-kindness as better terms. I both agree and disagree with the author to a certain extent.

A depressed person, or one that hates him- or herself, cannot love anyone, never mind talking about having compassion. At the same time, that is exactly what such persons wish on others. If we understand what it means to really love each other, including other beings, then it might not matter which term we prefer. However, the word “love” does bring up the idea of a deep emotional attachment. In this sense the word “compassion” is better as we can then have sympathy and empathy as well as sacrificing without getting attached to the person or being, which might lead to more suffering than anything else. Yet, that will still be a misunderstanding of what it means to really love, and this is where there needs to be a mind change.

Contrary to popular belief, love is not an emotion. Love is rather something we do; in other words, it is a verb. True love is to give or to do something without the expectation of return. Love is as simple as giving a glass of water to whoever asks for it without getting irritated, to give R2 to the person begging at the stop street. Or it is to exceed that person’s expectations and give him a big meal and R200. Love is an effort to reduce the suffering we cause animals and nature by our selfish ways by living more consciously. It is both within our means and outside our comfort zones.

May the One God with many Names and many Manifestations, bless you.

3 comments:

  1. I appreciate this definition of love:"Love is rather something we do; in other words, it is a verb. True love is to give or to do something without the expectation of return"

    Love is to respect and empathise with all beings (or at least to try doing so). Love is action,for all beings, whether human or non-human, are God's children - we all live in God's light and are all vessels for God's light. I am not worth more than a cow or spider or tree simply because I am human. We are all one in God, we are all spirit, and should strive to be more actively aware of that. Once we know this, we can focus on the Light in all, draw strength from it, rely on it and live in kindness - in balance and in harmony with all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. LOVE cannot be an emotion as emotions come from compulsiveness, only reacting to phenomenon.  Love is an action from within.
    Thank you for clarification fellow Omnist����������

    ReplyDelete
  3. The blog starts off well with describing the loss of meaning and value of words. Briefly describes the shallowness of deep and meaningful concepts, in this case Love and in doing so we have lost the fundamental meaning and have drifted away without an anchor or point of reference.
    This is so well seen in the blogger's reasoning.

    The first ironic point is the self description as an Omnist. The blogger claims in essence that he doesn't believe in obsolute truth. It reminds of Ted Turner's poem - "We believe that there's no absolute truth except in the truth that there's no absolute truth."

    It's amazing if not amusing that a person who is relativistic can pontificate on absolutes.
    The Judeo-Christian God is one God and that is an absolute.

    Bhudhism which it is not clear if it is a religion in the real sense was started when Agathama Bhudha rejected the fundamental tenants of Hinduism being the Vedas, reincarnation and the caste system. I am not sure sure how one takes religions that each claim exclusivity of truth and reach a conclusion that they're not absolute while still clinging to and trying to argue their truth. Is the blogger claiming that he's found absolute truth in his being an Omnist but would make nonsense of his argument.

    For example, God is love. Not merely as something he does but as a description of his essence. Love is who God is. The great apostle John would write that "if anyone does not love he does not know God; for God is love."

    Now the blogger goes on to confuse brotherly love; "love your neighbor as you love yourself" and sacrificial redeeming love;" For God so loved...that he gave his only begotten son..." Jesus would later say "greater love has no man than this. That a man should lay down his life for his friends."

    Problem for the blogger is failure to fully understand love or the concept thereof, something which the Greeks had a much better understanding of. To them there was Philia - friendship love;
    Eros - erotic love;
    ludus - flirtitious love;
    Pragma - time tested love
    Philautia - self love
    Mania - depended love
    And ultimately "AGAPE" Godly love... highest form of Christian love.

    Here one understands the conversation
    Between Jesus and Peter as recorded by in the gospel of John, Jesus asks Peter "do you agapeo me" and Peter replies "yes Lord I Phileo you." Finally Jesus asks " do you Phileo me" and remembering his earlier betrayal Peter must have questioned himself 'do I even love him as a friend? I denied him a few days ago.

    This is a very deep subject from a Christian perspective and I am disappointed that the blogger who has studied theology addresses this subject in a manner do unenriching.

    ReplyDelete