Eros In Venus

"Sexual desire without Eros wants the thing in itself." -- The Four Loves,  C.S. Lewis

Venus, the goddess of love in Greek mythology and Eros, god of the same are often bandied about; today science and technology have made us too smart, too slick for something so imprecise as a myth. And yet author C. S. Lewis, most famously wrote about this. Lewis, who is the author of many 20th century works, is best known for Narnia.

About Eros and Venus he writes, Eros without Venus is for lack. Owing to the ancient devotion of the Romans, erotic principle well observed Eros on its own was something altogether different than when enfolded in Venus. As Lewis explains, the 'carnal element within Eros I intend to call Venus.'

"Sexuality,' he adds, ' operates without Eros, or as part of Eros."

It is not necessary to feel anything more than attraction or desire to activate that part of the equation which functions wholly by instinct. And Lewis hastens to add that he writes without moral or other notions, some such as the thought that sex 'with love' is pure while without love it is something else; nor does Lewis seek to describe the activities of Eros 'under a soaring and iridescence which reduces the role of the sense to a minor consideration.'

Eros in Venus is Lewis'; contribution to a description of what the ancients saw as estimable, worthy of a spiritual cause, a religion of degree. This experience he describes as the 'in loveness of the Beloved.' When one first beholds another, it as if he is captured, so captivated may one be by the gazing upon who has inspired this. In a simple, general delight, pre-occupied with all that the one may be, a thirst develops to simply know the creature of ones' gaze, to behold in totality. While in this state one really hasn't the leisure to thing about carnal matters; rather the thought of the person takes precedence. While filled with desire, he may be satisfied to continue in reverie and contemplate this creature whom one may call beloved.

In contemplation, the arrival of Eros, erotic love arrives as if a 'tidal wave, an invader taking over and reorganizing his sensuality. Sexual desire without Eros, wants it, the thing in itself; Eros while in Venus wants the Beloved. While one may want a woman not for herself but for the things she may provide, in Eros one wants a particular person--that person for the person them self. This is the Beloved created through some mysterious activity of Eros; in Eros at its most intense, the beloved is needed, craved even for their very self, distinct and unique from all others, admirable in itself. And it's importance is far beyond the lover's need.

While certainly hard to explain, its metaphysical aspects may be explained thus, 'I am in you, you are in me. Your heart is my heart, and my heart is part of your heart alone.' So without Eros, sexual desires, like every other desire is simply about our self. Eros makes it uniquely other focused. Now it's about the Beloved one. The distinction between giving and receiving blurs, indeed it's obliterated when Eros is in Venus.

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.

The Impulse for Affection

"That our affections not kill us, or die." --Donne


Affection unites even the most unlikely of partners. Affection, an intense need to be needed often finds an outlet in attraction, indeed sometimes suffocating obsession, to find, for some, expression in pet holding.
For many, their dog or cat is a substitute for association with ones' fellows. That someone is terribly fond of animals, that they endeavor to protect and pet them tells us little beyond this until we know more clearly their deeper nature.

For some, animals are the bridge between their intellectualism and a corresponding slipping sense for nature; for others it may be a relief from the expectations and demands of human companionship. Animals, after all are animals, they don't object to our coarser habits.

Affection is, after all, responsible for the greatest majority of happiness and contentment we feel in our lives. Yet if one is honest for a moment, it can be seen that affection for all its positiveness can be twisted or warped into something quite different, unrecognizable in its usual form.

Here, it takes a dark shape. Nine tenths of the human population would find this darkness unrecognizable. For those who do recognize such a thing within themselves or others, it might be termed, an 'affection of the fallen,' those who work for wages in the salt mines, who like Pinocchio, find themselves donkeys pulling wagons, enslaved.

Affection, it seems, produces happiness if, only if, there's a good measure of decency, common sense give and take. In other words, mere feeling isn't enough to sustain affection. Greed, self centeredness, deception of self and others are but a few of the darker motives.

If, on the contrary, there's a sense of decency, that's inclusive of give and take, of justice; humility, patience and the admission of a higher, out of self love, affection will be sustained. Affection is respectful, forgiving, tolerant, kind. It thrives on the familiarity of long established ties.

If these types of sensibilities are lacking, affection darkens, or simply fades. There's not enough without decency and fair justice to sustain it. It goes bad. Living through affection alone leads to the pleasures of those who resent, who despise, who hate with an often extreme depravity. "Love,' said author C.S. Lewis, 'becomes a God, becomes a demon."

Affection wishes neither to wound, to dominate nor humiliate. "If you would seek to be loved, be lovable." --Ovid. 
 Affection is neither indifferent nor overwhelming in its attentions. It admits to free will. It is the most humble of loves. As for erotic love, without affection, its lifespan is short. Affection doesn't suffocate, nor does it seek to tie one or another up, to control, to dominate or to submit. These are all for the animals, for whom affection means little.

What Do You Live For?

"What if what we long hoped for does not come? The willingness to live for a better day."

What am I living for? Living for the joy of acquisition and power is self serving; living for the good of others is perhaps more in the Way. Yet we can seem to think ourselves to be living in the Way and yet we are not. There are those who convince themselves they are right; their ego has the answer, it is good--for me.
Do you live for freedom? In one sense freedom is the absence of restraint. There is nothing to hinder me to act as I choose. Suppose, however, that you live in a universe that for every choice I might make, the world has already determined the response, responses for which I have no control. I may remain physically free, no one has tied me down or locked me up, but I seem to lack freedom in a more durable and possible sense. While I am free to act as I choose, my choices are not free.

There is another type of freedom says the Christian philosopher and theologian, Augustine of Hippo. In the book, On Free Choice of the Will, translated by Thomas Williams, Augustine writes, "I have freedom to choose in a way that is not determined by any thing outside my control, what Augustine called metaphysical freedom. The view that human beings have metaphysical freedom is also known as Libertarianism."
Augustine is one of the great defenders of Libertarianism. He says that human beings are endowed with a power called the will. A person can direct his will to go in seemingly limitless directions. His own freedom of direction, then, can be thought of as free choice.

A person may choose for himself money, power, influence, sex, excesses of all types; these choices so mentioned have all been external choices, made by factors outside the person. If so, then a person could not be entirely responsible for them.
But it is not external factors that determine our choices. Rather it is internal states: beliefs, desires, hopes and fears. Since it is the desire, the will of a person and the character which determines one's choices, freedom therefore is not threatened.

Yet a Libertarian like Augustine would not be swayed by this. He says that in fact, human beings are rational thinking, and free choice makes them therefore responsible. Because persons have metaphysical freedom in this view, they are capable of making a real difference in the world. We may write our own "scripts." We may be truly in the image of God, the Creator, bringing something into the world that previously did not exist before us.

Dogen and the Teacher

"Perfectionists are never satisfied with who they are, or others but are always reaching for a goal and never enjoying the imperfect moment they're in." Thomas Moore

Thomas Moore writes in his book, The Soul's Religion, that one of the goals of the 'educated' is to become perfected, more complete, more whole in themselves. He writes that we must not forget for all the importance of spirit, that bodies are needed; spirits inhabit bodies and an everyday life is lived from them, but what will we, the spirit-body learn, and how will we learn so as to realize the "perfected self"?
In the everyday, complex world of science and technology, the role of pain, of trial and ordeal are seen as experiences to be eliminated, controlled, suppressed; yet Moore argues that these experiences, these moments are vital to a human education. It is experience, simple experience, finally and not intellectual achievement that will bring around a perfected soul, the one which is completed, whole and peaceful.

Zen master, Suzuki in quoting another, Dogen, goes on to say "you will be even the teacher of Shakyamuni Buddha." As bodies are souls whole and complete, we learn in the Dharmakaya that as Suzuki also repeats, 'when you realize Buddha nature, you are the teacher,' so then the best teacher is the one who does not teach, yet who leads, guides, experiences the lessons of his students, and his students experience the lessons of the teacher. In this way teaching is profound with benefit. It is a far and away from the experience, in which some have believed, that the teacher is the expert who pours knowledge into otherwise empty heads.

Thus as Thomas Moore notes from his own life experience, imperfection is a good and valued part of education, of both the student and the teacher. In the best moments of teaching, an alchemy or a deep moment of newness of creation, a mystery transpires between two or more persons engaged in this process of experience and perfection. "When a teacher evokes the deep process of imparting and learning subtle aspects of life's mysteries, the teaching goes on." And like any creative activity, teaching "happens best when a muse is present, initiating something far deeper" in the exchange.

Other Mudras

"the soul must empty itself to be filled with God." by St. John of the Cross

While many perceive the yogic mudras as part of esoteric Asian practice, the Simple Mind would confer with others who see them as signs and gestures, common in all human communities. Everything from the simple upheld hand to hail a taxi in New York to the upturned palm to indicate sincerity in Beijing or honesty in Rome, hand gestures or mudras are everywhere. In some spheres of life we are all connected in some way or another. It is part of what makes us human as opposed to another animal species.

Writing in the book, Christians talk about Buddhist Meditation, Buddhists talk about Christian prayer, edited by Rita Gross and Terry Muck, Donald Mitchell writes "One's day is offered to God in a way that changes one's attitude toward others -- one lives more for their happiness... Vows [are] aspirations to pursue a higher good...' Mitchell continues, speaking on his topic with reference to the Buddhist teacher, Robert Aitken, he notes: 'as Aitken says, realization must be sustained; healing and reconciliation must be sought when unity is broken... this healing and reconciliation includes one's relationship with God. Dharani, Mudras and chanting, in both Buddhism and Christianity, [each in its customary forms,] creates an atmosphere... where one's mind is transformed." Gestures, both great and small, play their part.


With physical practice and devotions such as prostrations, chanting and other physical responses the practitioner may then move the awakened mind into a sense of wholeness, unity and glimpses of the divine, moved with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, writes Mitchell, concluding his essay. Resting in the 'now moment' there is the experience of life as it is, just this moment. 

The Buddhist precepts as discussed by many, lead the practitioner to awareness that there is no lesser nor greater, no aware or unaware, not even large or small; yet there is just this moment. Likewise Christians too, it seems, seek to live in the 'now moment.' The practice of Christian symbols, or Mudras have long played a part in that from the earliest times of persecution to modern devotional practice. Today mudras are part of many personal and communal practices worldwide.