On Friendship

"Friendship must be about something." --C.S. Lewis

C.S. Lewis wrote a classical interpretation of many emotions central to human life. In his book, The Four Loves, he addresses the meaning of friendship. Drawing upon rich resources such as the ancient Greeks, Romans, traditions borne through millennia, his view may be termed as western, if not universal.

Lewis delineates the many views of friendship; he describes it as mutuality, as 'seeing the same truth, looking outward, much as French writer, St. Exupery does; he explores friends in the context of erotic love; the search for Beauty, the engagement of spirituality, companionship, and he asserts that it's the least jealous of all the loves.

Where Lovers seek privacy, friends experience enclosure between themselves and the 'herd' rushing around them, and they may not be jealous so are often willing to admit another into their circle.
The American poet Emerson posed the question of a friend several times, simply asking, 'do you care about the same truths as I do?' The answer to this is the point at which a companion may move to a friend.
Shared activities and insights may be a draw for companions who 'share the road.' But a deeper, inner sense recognizing certain truths brings them into the realm of friend.

And while friends may not fully draw the same conclusions, they generally agree on the importance of questions. Seeing the shape of the world in similar fashion draws them to similar questions, if not responses.

Further Lewis argues simple friendship is entirely free of the need to be needed. He writes, "in a circle of true friends, each is simply what he is: stands for nothing but ones' self."

While Eros seeks out naked bodies, friendship seeks naked personalities. There is no absolute duty to friend anyone, nor is there a legal contract such as marriage. 

Friendship comes freely, entirely unencumbered with these other types of strictures.
Yet in modern, industrialized societies friendship is so often undervalued in favor of contractualized relationships as if these are somehow inherently better, more legitimate.
One cannot fail to notice the number and degree of divorces that abound in any given community.

Friends form moreover an appreciation of each other. They not only travel the same roads but their values within the realm of truths inform their judgement, leaving them more clear-eyed about one another.
They are observant of a mutual love and knowledge, and this forms itself into an appreciation a sentiment that often leaves one feeling in his deepest heart, humbled, what is he among those seemingly better, how lucky to be.
And when together among these friends, there is the knowledge that each brings out as if by magic the better in one self, the best, the funniest, the most clever, the beauty. In the conversation, the mind opens to something more, a perception of the self previously unknown comes into view. Life has no better gift to give than a good friend or two.

Gathering Communities

We gather together to work, to learn, to grow; we gather into communities, towns, universities. People everywhere, they live in groups, they live in families; they cherish their friends and they spend time together, supporting and enjoying their ways and their company. We get sick, we go to hospitals to help us recover.
What all these things have in common, with each of us in our everyday lives, is that inescapable fact that humanity, as a species, seems hard wired for gathering.

 Into groups we collect and revel. Together. It all seems so natural. Why, by working together, supporting and accomplishing worthwhile tasks, what could be better?
The person who lives stalwartly alone, who is friendless, who has very little or no community to speak of, that is a person often pitied and eyed suspiciously. We exclaim, "are they ill? Why are they such loners?"
This all makes simple sense. It seems so natural to gather, to enjoy the company of our brothers and sisters, our loves and loved here on earth.
Yet when the matter turns to named things such as 'religion', many of us recoil. Why? Well, it seems we don't think to belong after all. Some don't want to belong. Thus reinventing the 'spiritual' wheel is okay.

In fact, it's better than okay. It may be for these persons, the only way to demonstrate their will to 'pull themselves up by the bootstraps.' Many among us think, in spiritual terms, that there are aliens around us, to be avoided at all costs.
Infected with perhaps a strong sense of humanist enlightenment, a person with such notions eschews anything of community within the context of faith.

Yet if a faith community is true, existing for a higher purpose, for the common good, then it is, it must be and it will do something. Let me say this again: Churches, mosques, temples, ashrams and so forth exist because they do something for others.
If they do not, they they exist not for long. Communities survive and thrive because of the activities of each of its constituents. What each of us contributes to the good of all, is the community.

It is this fact that escapes many in the blog-sphere. Simply talking isn't sufficient, nor are kind thoughts or nice words and graphics. Communities must do something, and religious communities continue and persist for this very simple reason!
 Join the collective, engage in acts of social justice. Learn about yourself from another's eyes.
Help a friend. Be a community, be a support.

True Love From the False

"Love gives itself; it isn't bought." Henry W. Longfellow

As we move through our lives, one hears and learns by experience a simple truth as the poet, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow wrote. Love is free, it cannot be bought or coerced. Nor can it be captured or restrained, like a pet canary, adored in a golden cage.
Loving persons come together by desire, by free will, in giving. Lovers cannot be used, one blind to the motives of another. 'Love,' as the Bible tells us, 'sees all, knows all, tolerates, is patient and forgives'. In the book of Corinthians it is written:

"If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal."

The conclusion of this passage is also simple enough:

"For now we see in a mirror dimly, then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. But now-- faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love." --1Corinthians-NSB translation

For those whose life experience has been without the experience of love's purity, innocence, freedom, or patience, the foundation of relationship as adults may easily turn to an experience in which there is a transaction of "confusion between winners and losers in a game of competing needs," writes Deepak Chopra in his book, The Path to Love.
 Instead of weaving together in friendship, in desire, in love, individuals concentrate on what will benefit me. "How many couples bond by forming a "we" that is just a stronger, tougher version of "me"? muses Chopra.

"Undoubtedly," he continues,  "mutual ego needs have a place in every relationship... however when they obliterate the tender growth and life of love in the Spirit," love is replaced with something that is false. He notes that "acquiring an ally to fulfill them [needs] isn't the same as getting free from them. 
Only love can free us."
"The reason that ego and love are not compatible comes down to this: you cannot take your ego into the unknown, where love wants to lead. Ego craves control, certainty, and power alone. As practitioners on the Way, looking carefully, we see this is false notion. By life experience, we have found that the world is not static, it is not every man an island. Rather the world is as the Buddha preached: a world of change, impermanence; a world that survives because of the inter-being of all. One depends upon another.

Think about your morning habits, for example. The dwelling you awoke in was quite possibly built by another, the electricity you used was wired and made safe for you by others. The food you eat was grown and delivered by others; the water you drink, and the road you travel-- all made safe by others. A truth of love versus ego, then, is that "Uncertainty is the basis of life," writes Chopra.
And inter-being is the way.
Allow yourself what you deeply desire.  In love, in spirit, there are no ulterior motives. While acknowledging another's needs or wants, "Spirit neither takes responsibility for that need nor opposes it." In this way, the person and their love is seen as real, because whatever your true need is, is your reality.

A passion for Life

"You are the secret of God's heart."

There's a spirit awaiting your presence. Enter into it. Find what you may about life, love, yourself. Make your motto courage. "Know that love and tenderness are not powerless; patience and tolerance can produce tremendous change.
Yet these energies have to be used, not in submissiveness or resignation, but in passion," writes Deepak Chopra in his book, The Path to Love.

A passion for life is a passion for wholeness, for unity. It is the recognition that the world contains all things, side by side. Passion is the freedom to choose, to live in experience the things that are essential to a human existence.
This passion for unity is a passion for the male and female contained within the self. Like the marriage of Siva and Shakti, both the male and female are within, and both are vital.

"For men this may be the advent of tenderness, nurturing and trust. Having a woman always to supply these qualities is not enough. Male attributes of force and violence have become grotesquely exaggerated in this world because men leave the feminine energies to women...Vulnerable may be then seen as a human quality, not a weakness that makes a man only half a man. Competition based on ego will diminish...the ability to cooperate increases...Spiritually man is the complement of woman... By welcoming Shakti, a man truly is Siva."

In the Judeo-Christian tradition woman is made from man's rib, therefore at creation, the two are one. They join again in marriage and become one,  flesh of my flesh, reads Christian scripture. It is to be seen that in spirit, and in the ultimate reality, man and woman are alike, whole and unified, each with their unique emphasis. He and she joins to form 'we'.
 The world has not claimed there to be too much tenderness, too much friendship or love. The continued separation of creation, forces into opposition that which is destined to be together. Alienation becomes the tragic result, resulting in various self-destroying behaviors.

Chopra writes further, "A woman needs to allow herself however much time it takes to use Shakti energy to accomplish what has been reserved for the male ego. Shakti runs in everyone, but women have been given their femaleness [and unique creative ability] to accentuate the difference between themselves and Siva."

The ways of Shakti are the solution for many.  Allowing these spiritual realities to suffuse the self is the key to a whole, unified way of life, befitting of a human person.

The Marriage of Shakti and Siva
"Our minds," says Chopra, 'are conditioned to seeing male and female as polar opposites. It is totally inadequate to call Siva male and Shakti female since these terms limit God, who is limitless [in creation].
Siva and Shakti have been married together since the dawn of time. They are the divine whole that chooses to express itself by taking the appearance of male and female. You and I may do the same thing: my body may be male, my inner identities, spirit; thus by taking on Shakti, my whole soul includes both Siva and Shakti." paraphrased

Qualities of Siva and Shakti:

* Siva is silence. Shakti is power.

* Siva is creative. Shakti is creation.

* Siva is love. Shakti is loving.

"These qualities are not opposites, they are complements. The Vedic teaching is that out of the "divine sexual act, the world was born; therefore the feminine as the birth giver, is the natural vehicle of power... The silence of Siva who has no need to intrude, conquer, overcome, or aquire. 
Although he is called the 'destroyer of worlds' in the Bhagavad-Gita, what is meant is that Siva absorbs the universe back into himself at the end of creation. 
Siva, one of the three primal gods of India, along with Brahma and Vishnu conceive a particular form of the divine. Siva is best understood as a silent awareness that permeates everything. The creative potential of Siva is greater than any single expression, even that of galaxies or the world itself."

How can this be? It may be seen through a practice sometimes called second attention working through the sixth sense, intuition, sometimes also called sight or gift. In reality there are continuous signals everywhere which may be perceptible at any time through an intuitive or meditational process.

"The Indian mind is not linear,' writes Chopra. 'It finds no contradiction in making Siva the destroyer and all knowing creator.'
'Siva wants to be known. It is the god's greatest sign of love. Entering into passion, you express your own nature and nothing less."

Love and Death

"Death is our enemy, our last enemy." Love is Stronger than Death by Peter Kreeft

Death the stranger, death the friend, wait... death is all of us. Death is a mother, death is a lover...  Philosopher and author, Peter Kreeft will not allow his reader to loiter in Love is Stronger than Death. The topic for many is wholly unexamined, and yet at some time it will greet each and all. "Life is always fatal. No one gets out of it alive... It is a mysterious country...a bottomless pit... we have not unraveled her riddle...little chance we will." Kreeft writes in addition, that there is the meaning of life in the meaning of death. The empirical absolute of life is death. It is the backdrop, if you will, against which all of life plays out.

Death makes a life have either more or less meaning; it provokes some to be more mindful and others to become more and more forgetful. If death is meaningful "then life is startlingly more meaningful or startling less meaning-full than we usually think." Kreeft goes on to say that his book is about death, not about the feelings we may have towards death. He asks and examines questions about what is ultimately a reality, death, a measurable and empirical fact, like the sun rising and setting.

The 'democracy of the dead,' as C.K. Chesterton called it, refers to death as the great leveler, the one force in life that makes all equal. He asks what is the 'end of life?' Is it death? Can we know what the purpose of life is when faced with its 'death' shadow? How can it be like love, a desired end, the goal, a consummation? In the view of death, these terms seem strange, strange indeed. He, Kreeft, says we cannot begin to know why we die until we begin to know why we live. Knowing one's purpose in life sets the course for a whole host of other directions and priorities.

Death gives rise to questions about life after death. It forces the questions of the eternal, of God, of Bliss, of Nirvana and more. But first on to death as an enemy. It must be the enemy before we can recognize it as a possible friend. Many current, popular books on death teach confusion, in Kreeft's view. He says that, "denying, ignoring death, [it is] treated as a stranger...what this does is add to the denial of death."

He writes that as an enemy and yet the inevitable, somehow, we may come to befriend this one. But to say that it is merely natural, not to be overly played out is like the difference between tolerance and forgiveness. Forgiveness sees beyond the evil; it sees all the more. Tolerance refuses to acknowledge evil at all; therefore it is blinded. So instead of finding the way free of evil, tolerance is a block, a trap into evil. Thus the modern cycle of the enmity with death continues with tolerance.

Writing about the ways people consider death such as sleep, loss, or darkness, Kreeft writes we "find our selves at birth plunged into a madly rushing river", that flows towards a subterranean cave; within that cave, life co-exists. Between these two finite poles, we 'strut our stuff.' Always we fall in timeless direction. And finally he notes that "death is irreversible because time is irreversible... In fact time is another word for death."

And isn't death, like life, composed of both meetings and partings? we look forward to all the great and potential meetings in our life, despite the wistfulness  of departures. And so for the puzzle of it: we all rebel against this fact, eventual.  In a sort of lover's quarrel with the world, we diligently resist, rebel; railing against time. "Is that all there is?" We shout. But wait! There is joy, there is bliss. The religious and spiritual among us insist. The quest for meaning, for purpose, for love and friendship give to us what death will not.

There is a reason to live and a reason to die. Can modern society have fallen so far from the traditions that made these reasons clear? In Kreeft's view the answers and the results of our traditions, our ancient wisdom, in part, leads us back to the way of a rising heart of humanity, a rising to meet the One, the beloved. Death is then the friend.

Blinded by Sympathy

"What makes sympathy so weak is its lack of objectivity."  Love and Responsibility by Karol Wotyla

Writing about the path from sympathy to friendship, Wotyla in his book, Love and Responsibility, writes that "one in sympathy" may be thought of as one who experiences with;  it means above all else, that what results in the way of emotional energy, is energy which strongly tends to unite persons. In the event of sympathy, the uniting of persons arises as a direct response to their feelings and emotional response to external events.
"This is something which happens to them, and is not the direct result of an act of  [free] will. Sympathy is a manifestation of experiences rather than activities... the will is captured by the force of those emotions and pulled along." Sympathy is love at a purely emotional stage without any act of choosing. "At most the will consents to its existence and to the direction it takes."

When we find ourselves sympathetic to another, we find that the other is in our 'emotional energy range,' and that an emotional response is awakened by their presence. "This response is awakened with my sympathy, and may also die with it, since it depends upon my emotional attitude to the person who is the object of my sympathy."
There then is a weakness present in sympathy such that without the action of the will, sympathy persists; it tends to blind and obscure the innate value of the person. Sympathy in itself is not friendship and cannot constitute a love for others, despite the reality that at least initially, it pulls one another into a single orbit and makes the persons feel emotionally close.
It may and does creates some of the conditions for true friendship and love to arise, but without a conscious desire of goodwill and benevolence, 'I want what is good for you,' a simple, sympathetic relationship falters.

While sympathy may at times pass for goodwill, its effect is not long lasting. It is illusion. For what is real, remains. It is here that sympathy may be blinding. Often persons, acting under the sphere of pure emotion, mistake it for friendship.
As a result, for example, marriages may be based not on friendship, a direct act of will, but on sympathy; if one does not engage the will, at some point the marital relationship dissolves. In  friendship, the act of choosing, the desire of what is 'for the goodwill for another' is actively and necessarily engaged. Both friendship and goodwill are absent in relationships founded in mere sympathy.

Beyond Guilt and Shame

"When people forgive themselves, we sense their merger with something big and beyond us; then it is we, who feel shut out and betrayed... forgiveness can provoke jealousy and anger... Forgivers have found the way to peace, while the rest of us watch in confusion, anger or envy." Forgiving Yourself by Beverly Flannigan

Writing further on the essential subject of self-forgiveness, Beverly Flannigan takes up the discussion of what is it in a life when fundamental assumptions about ones self are shattered? What occurs to the one who suddenly is confronted with a reality both different and less than the one which he previously owned? While "retaliation and revenge are an option, forgiveness of our self and others is another option."

Forgiving is a signal to yourself and others that you have learned, that you are once more engaged in the activity of life. It requires a braveness to step forward again with new knowledge and clarity into what is never to be fully known, that is life itself, and move forward. Is not mercy and a portion of justice important both personally and in our society? May it first begin with your self.

Often in our life, we meet with traumatic experiences, experiences which shatter what we previously thought or believed about ourselves. In the bright light of loss of face, the loss of self-respect, we may be plunged into self doubt and shame. When people begin to question their former assumptions about the world, spirituality, their colleagues, family, them self and others, what may have been assumed is now set into turmoil.

If for example, a person "lies, cheats, physically harms, or betrays others, these behaviors may not, at least initially, destroy the perpetrator's assumptions." Assumptions such as: I'm a good person--even though I cheat sometimes;they deserve it; I'm only working for my best... so I have to betray those with what I know; I live in a world where others accept my flaws, but that's because there is something wrong with them."

And when a person causes harm that remains and is injurious, that person perpetrates something which brings their previous assumptions into sharp focus. "An unforgiven wrong-doer is faced with a new set of assumptions," writes Flannigan. "Additionally they are responsible for destroying the very beliefs which held their world together... They now face the new idea that they may not have been a "good person" at all. And others do not unconditionally condone or accept their behavior," in spite of recognition of the transgressor's flaws. Nor can others be forced, or necessarily convinced, to continue in relation as before. The situation ruptures. Sometimes an apology must occur, sometimes, something more is required.

The injurer, for the first time likely, realizes that "other people do not have to condone their injurious actions, and that it is not they who have "now rendered the world less benevolent than it was, it's me." People are often shocked to find that there are limits. In civil society, there is a rhythm, an order which must be attended to; when one harms others, the injured begin to question themselves and what they formerly assumed.

Finally it is the injurer, along with the injured who will have to, like the victim, if they care about what they have done to permanently damage their own belief system, to build again, a new way and a new set of beliefs.