No Simple Subject is Evil...

"The fall of the first human being from... wisdom to folly was neither wise nor foolish..."  On Free Choice of the Will by Augustine of Hippo

While it touches all of us at one time or another, evil is no simple subject. Most of us have many questions and much confusion when confronted with an evil face, sometimes our very own face. Today many are squeamish about the subject itself.
In the Judeo-Christian tradition, evil necessarily encompasses the notion of wrong doers and sin, failings we all are many times confronted with. Writing perhaps his most influential thoughts for the posterity of the Western mind, philosopher and theologian Augustine of Hippo writes in his treatise On Free Choice of the Will, that there are many forms of evil both great and small.
There is no single evil that can be pointed to in the world of men.

"Moral truths are no different. Belief is required for understanding. If you are brought up among people who think morality is just a matter of opinion, it is highly improbable that you will ever be able to see that morals teach us a lot of true and interesting things about the intelligible world..." Your prior beliefs, and  prejudices will prevent your understanding. Without belief you then will not understand...
All that Augustine writes may be viewed as an effort to awaken the reader to a fresh view, previously unexamined... In his view, 'moral uprightness consists in submission to the eternal and immutable truths which are not of our own, individual making. Freedom moreover consists of submission to Truth.' Freedom is to cleave to truth, the essence of freedom. How so? Augustine writes that it is only truth and goodness which cannot be taken from the soul against its will... 

Everything that exists, he posits, has a degree of order, measure or value. In other words, in keeping with ancient Greek thought, every nature has a form.
A form that may be characterized as to its extent, measure and motivations in nature. For example it is the nature of a plow to plow land, so the more evenly and cleanly it plows, the better a plow it is. A good plow plows well. "
So the more form a nature has, the more goodness it possesses. Also true is that the more form a nature possesses, the more being it has." Evil, as Augustine of Hippo understood it, is a simple, complete deficiency.
Evil is a void or lack of form, and yet every nature in this view comes from the Creator, G-d. This One is the source of all being and goodness. Therein lies the paradox and darkness of evil. In the act of condemning something or some one, we acknowledge this fact.

Thus for human beings the only ultimately satisfying thing, as created beings with form, is to live up to their nature. "When the will turns away from the higher goods to the lower goods, it frustrates the rule of nature, reversing a natural order and subjecting itself to the un-natural rule of a master.
The being is thus enslaved and without genuine freedom because the only genuine freedom is submission to truth. Truth here is likened to an apple falling from a tree. It has no choice but to fall downward; it has no option to frustrate the rule of gravity.

On the contrary the human will is free, having a choice about when to obey the natural rule. And try it does for good and for ill. Airplanes may fly upward, but in thunderstorms they often crash. This sadly does not prevent men from trying to fly them at that time anyway with deadly consequences for themselves and their passengers.
"Human beings can voluntarily wreck their lives by running afoul of the rules that govern their nature. Yet a soul with that kind of will is free, free to choose what is either hopeless struggle against itself, or what is ultimate freedom to become what one most truly is.

Knowledge, Commitment and Freedom

"Only true knowledge of a person makes it possible to commit one's freedom to the other."
--Karol Wojtyla

"Love," says Christian theologian, Wojtyla, 'consists of a commitment which limits one's freedom-- it is a "giving" of the self... to limit one's freedom on behalf of another. Limitation might seem to be something negative or unpleasant, but love makes it a positive, joyful and creative thing."

If this freedom is not engaged by the will, it becomes negative, and gives to human feeling, a sense of emptiness and unfulfilment. Yet love commits to freedom and " imbues it with that to which the will is naturally attracted-- the element of goodness. Thus the will then aspires to the good; freedom is the providence of the will, existing for and because of love; it is the way of love in which human beings share most fully in the good. "Human freedom then is one of the highest in the moral order of things," says Wojtyla. This order encompasses the spectrum of man's longings and desires; his growing pathways of awareness of the life in the spirit. But man longs for love more than he longs for freedom. In choosing, there is an affirmation of value in response to natural, sense perceptions, to sentiment. "Sexual values [as an expression of the appetite] tend to impose themselves," regardless of the choosing of the possible values of a whole person.

For this reason, a man, especially, one who has not succumbed to mere passion, but preserves his interior innocence, usually finds himself in the arena of struggle between the sexual instinct and a need for freedom, or liberty to do as he otherwise wishes. This natural instinct, this drive of Eros cannot be underestimated; it is a powerful, yet limited drive. Eros can, and often lays siege to the will itself, clouding the other values with sensual intensity. Through a perception of sentiment, however, the will may be freed of the vice-like hold of a conscious, lusting desire, of a consumer view; rather it is transformed by sentiment, and the action of the will to a longing for a person of the other sex, for a possibility of wholeness.

It is love, finally, when the will enters into the equation, providing a conscious commitment of one's freedom in respect to another person, in recognition and affirmation, providing a creative contribution of the love that develops between the persons. Thus love is between persons, existing in a space that is neither one or the other, is created, and not possessed. So then in love, in freedom, there is a conscious will for another person's good, an unqualified good, a good unlimited, that is a person's happiness.

"Life has taught us that love does not consist in gazing at each other but in looking outward in the same direction. " -Antoine de St. Exupery

We desire moreover to make the beloved happy, to please them and see to their good. It is this precisely that makes possible for a person to be re-born in love, to become alive, aware of the riches within himself, of his creativity, his spirituality, of his fertility. The person, in love, compels belief in his own spiritual powers; it awakens the creativity and the sense of worth within the individual. And yet for all its lofty abundance, human lovers must learn to translate their highest impulses into the everyday world.

Love, Free and Rational in the Bodhichitta Mind

"Do not conform yourselves to this age, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing, and perfect." the Bible, Romans 12:2

The Christ exhorted his disciples to "love one another; the highest commandment is that we love one another. The rest is all commentary."
However, as in previous discussion, there is, we will see, one love, one world all contained within. In our efforts to describe and learn about this experience, it is important to keep sight of the philosophical and theological values which "love" entails, to distinguish them from secular notions.

The union of persons in a love relationship, states Karol Wojtyla in his book, Love and Responsibility, "do so, and must do so as free and rational persons." Thus the union of persons has a truth, moral and unique to the individuals, shared between them, and is a value as such.  
Moral is within, distinguished from that imposed from without. "In giving persons [as distinct from animals], a rational nature, and the capacity to consciously decide their own actions, it thereby makes possible for them to choose freely the ends...
And where two persons can join in choosing a certain good as their end, there exists also the possibility of love. This view is consistent with the simple mind. It is consistent with practice and the precepts.

Yet, persons must not be chosen merely as the means or instruments of creative power, but on the "basis of a love worthy of human persons." We are, then, compelled to understand the Gospel commandment to love as the will of the Creator towards creation.
And for this reason, the notion of use becomes important. A Buddhist precept, right behavior towards others, also resonates through most all spiritual traditions. Eric Bayda writes extensively on this subject in his book, At Home In the Muddy Water.

Another view prevalent in the West worth mentioning is the Doctrine of Manifest Destiny. This idea supposes that all is decided at the moment of birth; free will plays little if any role in the face of manifest destiny. Some in America deride this theological teaching, calling it 'spiritual imperialism.'
A great many spiritual traditions in the west continue to trace their modern views and attitudes to such thought.

Contrary to secular views or manifest destiny, in the union of persons, in the wholeness of the universe there exists a joy, consistent with the dignity of human persons, resulting in collaboration, from mutual understanding and the harmonious expression of jointly chosen aims. The French aristocrat, writer and adventurer, Antoine de St.Exupery writes in his book, Wind Sand and Stars: "love does not consist in gazing at each other but in looking outward together in the same direction."

St. Exupery writes further on the subject:

"...Very slowly do we plait the braid of friendships and affections. We learn slowly. We compose our creations slowly. We have to live a long time to fulfill ourselves.
But you, by the grace of an ordeal which stripped you of all that was not intrinsic, you discovered a mysterious creature born of yourself. Great was this creature and never shall you forget him. And he is yourself.

You have had the sudden sense of fulfilling yourself in the instant of discovery, and you have learned suddenly that the future is now less necessary for the accumulation of treasures. That creature within you is not bound by ties of perishable things; he agrees to be swallowed up in something universal.

A great wind swept through you and delivered you from the matrix the sleeping prince you sheltered--Man within you. You are the equal of the musician composing his music, the physicist extending the frontier of knowledge. Now you are free. What have you now to lose, to believe in what you cannot yet see? You have reached an altitude where all loves are of the same stuff. Perhaps you have suffered. What of that! This day you have been welcomed home by love.

No man can draw a free breath who does not share with others a common and disinterested ideal. Life has taught us that love does not consist in gazing at each other but in looking outward together in the same direction. There is nothing other than union through the same effort. All of us desire the same sort of contentment...

Let us then refrain from astonishment at what men do. One finds his essential manhood comes alive in cooperative effort, self sacrifice, a rigorous vision of justice. For that man, there will be then one truth. Truth for any man is that which makes him a man.

If our purpose is to understand mankind and his yearnings, to grasp the essential reality, we must never set one man's truth against another's. All men are demonstrably in the right.... But truth, we know, is that which clarifies, not that which confuses. Truth is the language that expresses universality. Truth, then, is not what is demonstrable but what is ineluctable. What all of us want is to be set free. We all yearn to be set free in love, to escape from prison."

Resonating this view, Karol Wojtyla writes 20 years later: he observes if, instead, the role of man in creation is understood as fundamentally a "drive for enjoyment [as in a Freudian psychological view], this inner life is almost totally negated."
In this figuring of the person, Wojtyla writes, "thus the Gospel teaching of love is not consistent with use, but more seeks, demands cooperation with and about creation. It is a mutual relationship created in truth and freedom for the objective good of persons." The element of free will plays a central role; it negates any notion of manifest destiny.'

"man possesses a characteristic of the inner self, the ability to know, to comprehend, the truth objectively and in its entirety... He is even capable of understanding his role" in the creative process, as a form of participation in the work of cosmic creation...'

"the person is reduced to a subject 'externally' sensitized to enjoyable sensory stimuli of a sexual nature. This conception puts human psychology --perhaps without realizing it-- on the same level as the psychology of animals. An animal may be conditioned to seek sensory pleasure, and to avoid unpleasant experience of the same sort, since it normally behaves instinctively to achieve the ends of its existence." 

Thus the Gospel teaching of love is not consistent with use, but more seeks, demands cooperation with and about creation.
The union of persons is a mutual relationship, created in truth and freedom for the objective good of all persons. The use of others in the effort to create, to the contrary is a false relation.

God Is No Businessman

"Eros makes promises, but agape keeps them." -- The Four Loves by C.S. Lewis

Poets and philosophers alike have spent many words describing the almost indescribable. They write words of love, friendship, affection, brotherhood; the writer Dante said of love, "[there was] the love that moves the sun and all the stars." It is this love, all encompassing, that concerns Peter Kreeft in his book, The God Who Loves You. He writes in a Christian perspective of love experiences. "Everything is a gift from God," writes Kreeft.
This is, he says, incredibly simple, yet our human tendency towards complexity makes it look murky and confusing. The writer, Chesterton, said "life is always confusing for one without clear principles." Yet here is, says Kreeft, simplicity itself, shining brightly if we will only look. God is Love. What he wills for me, comes from goodness, for my own good. This, "is not poetic fancy, but sober, logical fact."

We may then view love in the light of goodness. What comes in a life may be a sign, an indication pointing the way; it means something. Our suffering in love means something, in this view. Christian thought believes that like the Christ upon his cross, our suffering is for all, for the common good--ours and others. Love then, points the way back to the divine giver. The parables of the Christ do not tell us to love humanity in the abstract.
We are called instead to love our neighbor as our self. We are not called to like our neighbor, but to love as our self. It is to individuals that this love is directed. God's love then is personal, like a mother or a father love; it is unique because it becomes us, and giving it then, becomes its expression and cause. Love means then to share the light of the world, one person at a time with our family and friends.

Here is the part which becomes difficult for us: When we share with our neighbor, love, as ourself, we sometimes confuse the love God gives with our physical, corporal self. It's as if, in love, we have given our self literally, and not spiritually; thus in ego, a sense of possession arises. You are mine and I am yours. Perhaps even ownership, a relation which gives no heed to free will, replacing loving freely.

God is a lover. God is not a businessman or a manager taking account of all his stock. Martin Luther wrote in his treatise, The Liberty of a Christian, that what God wants is not possession nor a technical performance in life, but something simple and profound.
God wants our hearts. He gives and we receive through the Spirit. A heart may not be demanded or bought; it may not be contained or caged. It is freely given, and freely received. Luther was right. This is a simple truth which liberates us from the darkness and confusion of love. In love we are free.

As adults we may first try many ways to obtain and capture a heart. Some may work for a time, but ultimately the heart of love is free and flies where it wills. It cannot be possessed. This is frightening to one who feels great desire or need for that heart.
Yet thinking carefully, one may discover its source is not the person who first made its presence felt, the Beloved, but the One who gave it first in the Spirit of Love. The one who loves all, who loves freely.

The chains of possession must not be; yet at times ignorance or wickedness overcomes, and possession is confused for love. It is not. Love is free and must be. This recognition of freely given love is a love that honors, respects and lasts at least as long as the One who formed us in it.
Thus as adults mature, many come to the knowledge that romantic love "reveals the beloved, and is meant to point us towards union, Oneness with God."

Often we find ourselves in places which we never have dreamed of before, places which call for our complete attention, and challenge us beyond measure. Love is one of those places; yet there is no school for love, no way to read a book to easily or painlessly learn of its nature.

So we come into adult life armed with the love we learned as children within our family, the love that we may have encountered in our religious experiences, the friendships we develop in our youth, the pleasures of shared activities and hobbies with family, friends, groups or clubs.

All this we bring into adult life, but romantic love, eros, we have the least direct experience of as young adults. Perhaps we witnessed the many occasions of fondness and affection our parents exchanged, a friend in high school, a romantic flush that grew for a few months and then faltered.

Bringing these early experiences into the everyday world, we find that one day, we are inexplicably drawn, impelled into a connection with one who is not our family, not quite like anyone whom we've known before, and yet we are drawn to them, to a flame that seems to burn brightly when together. A relationship develops, perhaps not like one we've known before in our young life, but then a bit like every relationship we have experienced. There is friendliness, sharing, laughter, understanding, and perhaps, a quiet peacefulness when together. But what of it?

Much of our social relationships are influenced and dictated not by individuals, but by societal norms and values which seek to define and place persons into fairly rigid categories. And society, as a component of the everyday world is rigid in conforming to the established norms. Unlike the words of poets, the mystics, and philosophers, living a love story can be difficult and confusing.

This article first appeared here on October 19, 2009

Ancient History Today

"We have taken an oath to God before we took one before you..."  Maurice, Theban Legion officer

What's a bit of ancient history, anyway? Who cares? Well there was the time of the Roman Legions; going backward in time to about 280 CE--that's the end of the second century, the Roman empire extended for thousands of miles beyond the city-state of Rome. The Romans inhabited large swaths of Europe, including Germany, France and England. They didn't make the time to invade Ireland. Perhaps they thought the Irish unworth their efforts.
They've left many, many remnants of their culture and ideas to the West today. This legacy includes our modern languages and religion. So there. We've now easily returned to 2012, or about 1,800 centuries after the Theban Legion.

Here the story has interest: The Roman legion recruited from Thebes in Upper Egypt consisted entirely of early (Coptic) Christians. In 287CE they were mobilized to assist with putting down the rebellious Gauls (parts of present day France). They arrived at the place of present day Martigny,  near Lake Geneva, Switzerland. Ordered into battle at that place, they joined with the other soldiers who were making offerings and sacrifices to their gods of the eve of battle. The Thebans refused to take part in this event.

Declared insubordinate by the Roman commanders, they suffered under them. When they persisted in their refusal, the commanders took action against the Theban soldiers who would not participate in a religious ritual they held against their conscience. Therefore one of every of their ten were taken by lottery and put to death. Still the Thebans exercised their free conscience and free will. Soldiers they may be, Christians as well-- they continued to refuse. The Roman commanders were baffled. Was not their absolute power and authority--even unto death sufficient to motivate these men?
Was their issue simply a religious cause, or did they have a greater sense of justice? Historic tradition records the words, in part of at least one of the men, their commanding officer, Legionnaire Maurice who made statements on the Copts behalf: We are soldiers, true, but we are also servants of the Christ. We cannot oppose God our Creator; we will oppose all our enemies... we rather die innocently, as martyrs for our cause. 
According to historic tradition, all 6,000 of the Coptic Thebans were slayed that day for insubordination. Today no one easily recalls the names of those in power that day at Martigny yet the name of Maurice and the Christ live on.
History's a funny thing, isn't it?

Democracy, Communism and Fascism

"The social aspirations of man cannot attain full originality and full value, except in a society which respects man's personal integrity." --Building the Earth by Teilhard de Chardin

Returning to the topic of religion and politics, we turn to the modernist ideas of democracy, communism and fascism. For those who doubt that religion, or even less spirituality, has a place with politics, permit here a simple enumeration: from the earliest religious history, politics demonstrates its part in the religious and spiritual milieu of mankind. As was common in the ancient world, the king or ruler of a tribe or nation had the "divine right" to determine, institute and force religious beliefs upon a population. They did this often, enforcing a state religion.

The Greeks and Romans, along with other Orientals, formed religions and spiritualities which predictably led to establishment of moralities for any of these given cultural groups. This practice continues with the moderns (1200-1800 in the common era), who as Kings and emperors forced their judeo-christian beliefs upon the population; indeed their kingship made them the heads of those faiths. In other words, the king was the state-church, so the church was represented in the body of the king.

It was this against which Machiavelli protested.

The Khalifs of the mid-east, Africa and other places arose to form what is now called Islam. They ruled in places by persuasion and by force; the United States of America was formed in part to protest against the state religion which during the colonial period was constituted by the King of England (King George III and others); today in the 20 and 21st centuries, there have been and will likely continue, governments which attempt to control, even police the population through forced religion.

Indeed we learn of places around the globe where Islam is practiced by regimes in an oppressive manner; the 14th Dalai Lama has been forced from his native Tibet into exile through religious actions taken against the Buddhists whom he leads. It seems the Chinese government wishes to direct and control his faith and others as well. Then there are the Sikhs in India, in opposition to the Hindus. They have, like many others, sought their own lands to live and practice their faith freely. The Jewish faith cannot be overlooked. It is in the arbitrary political formation of the modern state of Israel which has cast conflict upon previously settled territories.

And just now, today, in the United States the cry goes out for the practice of religion, freely or even not at all. The civil religion of the State wishes to suppose that it can most easily supplant the free will of the people and their freely chosen faiths for a legislated, legalistic spirituality and belief system. Today we are mired in conflict regarding forced participation in health care initiatives. The legislation which possibly thwarts the US Constitution, has made its way to the US Supreme court, the highest and final authority, asking to determine if Americans can and do have the liberty to practice their faith freely and the resulting morality they derive from it.

Many in this nation believe that government is dictating their moral stance in regard to health care. Many Americans who do not follow the state instituted Civil Religion represented in the law wish to practice a faith of their own free will and to determine what, if anything this should be; that the civil religion of the American state not be forced upon them.

It is these ideas and others, as such contained within democracy, communism and fascism against which many struggle from the bounds of religion and government.

Aristotle and the Akratic

"Weakness of the will is something we all think we know; many feel that we experience it ourselves."  --Weakness of Will by William Charlton

The good that I would feel to do; the good that I would not feel and do... is the subject of a talk by Saint Paul in one of his biblical letters to the Romans (Romans 7:15), is often attributed by modern commentators to a 'weak will.' Modern philosophers such as William Charlton take up this notion in his book, The Weak Will. So called 'weakness' he explains, is often an attempt to explain either behavior or the effects of behaviors. The behavior he describes and explores is that of 'going against one's better judgment,' and the result of that action.

In an effort to be concise, Charlton takes up the discussion of the greatly influential Aristotle's ideas on the the Will, and uses the Greek term, the Akratic. Translators of Aristotle have sometimes used the English term "incontinent" to indicate slips or mistakes in the will of persons. Delving into his topic, Charlton writes that there are several views on Akrasia. Some, like John Calvin, argue that there is no Akrasia, no free will; others argue that it wholly exists, such as the philosopher Emmanuel Kant.

The questions which Charlton seeks to expound are those of strength. Are there various strengths of will? Does that person in Akrasia consciously choose, and how so? What about the modern ideas of psychologists, like Sigmund Freud? Charlton notes, in counter-face to the established Roman hierarchy of the ancient times, that the first person thought to bring "the idea of the Will into philosophy (of the West) does indeed appear to have been the Christian Bishop, Saint Augustine of Hippo.
Augustine writes of the Will sometimes as 'a faculty of the mind,' sometimes as the mind itself in its role as a thing which issues commands... Augustine asks, how can the mind give orders which are not obeyed?"
Later thinkers of the Medieval age were confronted with the texts of both Aristotle and Plato; comparison of these with these texts by writers such as Saint Paul of the Bible caused them to ponder, "when I act against my own will, it means that I have self knowledge..."

Today the inquiry into the Will, volition and motivation is taken over largely by science and the theories of psychology. The spiritual component has been thus voided.  Moving far away from the ancient Greek conception of the will as having two parts,  modern philosophers like Descartes often see it as strength or force. Such strengths, weak or strong, are therefore practical problems to be solved.
Leaping forward, and the 'human potential' movement emerges. Desires, as weakness, now are at the forefront for thinkers such as Russell; men are then just at the whim and mercy of their desires.

Finally, Charlton weighs in after examining the thoughts of others. He says, "weakness of the Will is puzzling, insofar as we think our behavior is determined by our view of what is best; it's not so puzzling if we think our behavior is determined mechanistically by our physical environment."

Mahayana and the Will of the Dharmakaya

"Dharmakaya directs the course of the Universe, not blindly, but rationally." --Suzuki

In summary, Suzuki reflects that there are three essential aspects to that which is called Dharmakaya. Ultimately we are led into the teaching of the Trikaya, a sort of three-in-one, a trinity.
In the religious consciousness, there is intelligence (prajna), love (karuna), and the will (pranidhanabala). With intelligence, the Dharamakaya directs the progression of the universe--not blindly, but rationally. With love, because Dharmakaya embraces all beings "with a tender, fatherly love." Thirdly, Mahayanists suppose that its work is also accomplished with will, because it has been firmly set down that the Dharmakaya chief aim is for the good, a good which holds as its final goal, the conversion of all evil in the universe.
These evils, in the will of the Dharmakaya, shall be brought forth into the light of dharmakaya; they shall know his fatherly will, with which love and intelligence in their own being shall be realized unto they become at one with the will of the Dharmakaya. "Without the will, love and intelligence will not be realized; without love, the will and intelligence lose their impulse; without intelligence, love and will are irrational. In fact, all three are essential coordinates of the Dharmakaya and constitute the Oneness."

In other sects and denominations, some Buddhists may not agree with this view of the will. When rendered or understood literally or fundamentally, the inner significance, the working of the Dharmakaya is totally ignored. Yet the Dharmakaya is without a partial, fragmentary borrowing or knowledge as exists in other beings; thus Mahayanists are quite forthright in recognizing its completeness in both knowledge and will. Dharmakaya is wholeness, or oneness itself. What is done by the Dharmakaya is "done by its own free will, with intelligence and love, independent of all the determinations that might affect it from outside."

Those practitioners who recognize this free and creative will, especially those of the Sukhavati sect, recognize the presence of an all powerful, all encompassing will, embracing in love with all knowing intelligence, and they want to present it more concretely, more humanly, so that other practitioners may come to see beyond the clouds which obscure the vision.

A great Mahayana sutra says of love (karuna):

"With one great, loving heart
The thirsty desires of all beings
he quenches with coolness,
refreshing;

With compassion, of all he thinks,
which like space, knows no bounds;
Over all the world's creation
With no thought of particularly, he reviews .

With a great heart, compassionate and loving,
All sentient beings are embraced by him;
With means (upaya) pure, free from stain, and all
excellent,

He delivers and saves all creatures, innumerable.
With unfathomable love, and with compassion
All creations are caressed by him universally;
Yet his heart is free from attachment.

As his compassion is great and infinite,
He confers Bliss, unearthly, upon each and every being,
And shows himself all over the universe;
Until all attain Buddhahood, he'll not rest."

--"On Merit," the Avatamsaka (Lotus) Sutra
simplemindzen.blogspot.com