Chapter 10 Chapter 2 The Theory of Love-35

(5) God's love It has been established above that the reason why we pursue love is because we experience the gap between people, so we need to eliminate this gap through human union.The religious form of love, the love for God is also the same from a psychological point of view, and it also comes from the pursuit of eliminating barriers and demanding unity.In fact love to God, like love to man, has many forms, and the differences between these forms are largely the same as the differences between the various forms of love. In all theistic religions, whether monotheistic or polytheistic, God embodies the highest value, embodies perfection and beauty.Therefore, the special meaning of God often depends on what people think is the best and most beautiful. Therefore, when analyzing the concept of God, we should first analyze the character structure of people who believe in God.

According to our current understanding, the sign of human development is that people are separated from nature, from their mothers, and from their blood ties.At the beginning of human history, although man was driven out of the original harmony with nature, he still clings to this low-level connection and obtains a sense of security through this connection.Man has still felt himself one with the animal and vegetable kingdoms, and has tried to find unity through his oneness with nature.Many primitive religions testify to this stage of development.Animals were revered as totems; animal masks were worn on great religious festivals and at times of war, or an animal was worshiped as a god.When man's skills have developed to the stage of manual labor and art production, when man no longer depends solely on the gifts of nature—that is, he lives on the melons and fruits he finds and the game he catches, he puts his hands The fruit of labor becomes a god.During this stage people worship idols made of clay, silver and gold.Man reflects his own power and skill in objects of his own making, and worships his own power and possessions in an alienated form.In a still later stage man endows his god with a human form.It seems possible to do so only when man has come to know himself deeply, and has discovered that man is the greatest and noblest "thing" in the world.In this anthropomorphic phase, we can see two trends in this development.One tendency has to do with the feminine and masculine development of the gods, the other with the degree of maturity attained by man which determines the nature of his gods and the form of his love for them.

Let's start by talking about how religion progresses from a mother-centered stage to a father-centered stage.The great and decisive discoveries of Bachofen and Morgan in the middle of the nineteenth century, although not recognized by most of the scholarly community, prove beyond any doubt that, in at least many cultures, patriarchal Matriarchal stages of religion have existed before.In the stage of matriarchal society, the mother is the highest life, she is the god, and the authority of the family and society.In order to understand the religious nature of the mother-god, we need only recall what we have said above about the nature of maternal love.Maternal love is unconditional, it protects everything and promotes everything.Precisely because maternal love is unconditional, it is uncontrollable and unearned.The presence of maternal love gives the loved one a feeling of blessing, and the absence of maternal love evokes a feeling of bewilderment and despair.A mother loves her child because it is her child, not because the child is good and obedient, or the child can meet her wishes and requirements, so the basis of maternal love is equality, and all people are equal, because they are all Mother's children, for they are all sons of Mother Earth.

The next stage of human evolution—and the only one we know so well that we don't need to restore it with data—is the patriarchal stage. .At this stage the mother is driven from the highest position and the father becomes the highest being, not only in religion but also in society.The basic point of fatherly love is that fatherly love is conditional and stipulates principles and laws. A father's love for his child depends on the degree to which the child obeys him.The father likes the son who is the most like him, the most obedient and the most suitable as his heir. (The development of patrilineal society parallels the development of private property.) Patrilineal society is thus hierarchical; the original equality between brothers gives way to inequality and competition for the first place.Whether in Indian, Egyptian or Greek cultures, as well as in Judeo-Christianity and Islam, we can find patriarchal societies that believe in male gods. In society, people only believe in one main god.But the desire to pursue maternal love has not been completely eradicated from the heart, so it is not surprising that the image of a loving mother cannot be expelled from the Roman Pantheon.In Judaism, many features of the Mother Goddess appear in various schools of mysticism.In Catholicism, Notre Dame and the Virgin Mary symbolize the image of the mother.Even in Protestantism, the image of the mother has not completely disappeared, but has become more hidden.The most important principle put forward by Luther is: nothing that man can do can call out the love of God; God's love is a gift, and the religious attitude is to trust in this gift and make oneself weak and needy; Good deeds can influence God or cause God to love us.Luther's principles were no different from Catholic teaching.So despite its masculinity, Lutheran teachings had a hidden maternal element.

I must mention the distinction between paternal and matrilineal elements in religion, in order to show that the nature of divine love depends on the relative weights of these two elements in religion.The paternal element is to make me love God like a father; I should believe that God is just and strict, that God rewards and punishes clearly, and that God will eventually regard me as his beloved son, just as God chose Abraham and Isaac favored His son Jacob was as partial as God's chosen one.The matriarchal aspect of religion is that I love God as my all-encompassing mother.I trust in her love; however poor and humble I may be, however many sins I have committed, mother will always love me, and never love any other child more than me.No matter what happens - mother will help me, save me, bless me.Of course my love for God is inseparable from God's love for me.If God is a father, he loves me like a son and I love him like a father.If God is a mother, so is my love for her.

But in divine love, the difference between paternal and maternal elements is only one factor that determines the nature of divine love.Another factor is the degree of maturity each individual has attained in his conception of God and love of God. When human beings have evolved from a mother-centered social structure to a father-centered social structure, we can see from the religious development of the patrilineal society that the love for God is constantly maturing. ⒂ In the beginning, we see a tyrannical and jealous god.God regards the people he created as his own private property, and God can manipulate people as he pleases.This is the stage when God drives people out of heaven, prevents them from eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and thus becomes a god.At this stage, God also decided to use a flood to wipe out the human race, because no one could bring him joy—only his beloved son Noah survived.God also asked Abraham to kill his only beloved son at this stage to prove his love for God.At the same time a new phase has begun.God made a covenant with Noah in which God promised not to destroy human beings again—God took responsibility through the covenant.God is bound not only by the promises he makes, but also by his own principles, the principles of justice.On the basis of this principle, God had to agree to Abraham's request: if there were at least ten righteous people, the city of Sodom had to be forgiven.This new phase continues until God changes from the image of an autocratic tribal chief to a loving father, bound by the principles he himself instituted.Then from the image of the father to a symbol of the principles of justice, truth and love.God is love and justice.At this stage of development God is no longer a person, a man and a father.God becomes the principle that unifies phenomena.God cannot have a name of his own.For only objects, persons, finite things can have names.God is neither a person nor a thing, so how can he have a name?

The most convincing example of this development is the biblical story of God appearing to Moses.Moses said that if he did not tell the Israelites God's name, they would not believe that he was sent by God. (Because idol worshipers will not believe in a God without a name, the essence of an idol is that an idol has a name.) At this time, God compromised with Moses, and God said to Moses, My name is "I am what exists, and I will last forever." (This is more precise than the usual translation "I shall be what I shall be." The Hebrew form expresses the past, not the future.) "I am what is and I shall be" means that God is not finite, God is neither a person nor a thing.The proper translation of this sentence should be: Tell them, "My name is Nameless".Therefore, the prohibition of painting the image of God, indiscriminately calling God's name, or simply prohibiting calling God's name is to liberate people from the concept that God is the father and God is man.The theology developed on this basis has further deepened this idea, so that it is impossible to use positive adjectives when talking about God today.If someone says that God is wise, great, and good, this again means that God is a person, so the most we can say is what God is not, that is, using negative adjectives, that is: God is not limited, is not in love, Not unreasonable.The more I know what God is not, the more I understand God. ⒃

If we go on with monotheism, the process of refinement of thought, the only conclusion we can come to is: don't mention God's name, don't talk about God.In this way God becomes the image that should be in monotheism, that is, the image that cannot be expressed at all.God thus embodies the unity of the foundation of all things, the foundation of all existence.God becomes truth, love and justice. It is clear that the entire difference in the understanding of the nature of divine love arises in the evolution from the anthropomorphic to the monotheistic principle.One can hate or love the God of Abraham, because he is like a father; sometimes he blesses you, sometimes he angers you.Because God is the father and I am the child.I have not yet freed myself from my pious desire for omniscience and omnipotence.I have not yet achieved a level of objectivity to recognize my limitations as a human being, my ignorance and incompetence.I am like a child who always emphasizes that there should be a father who can help me, protect me and punish me—a father who loves me when I obey and angers me when I disobey, and a father who hears my respect and feels good.It is obvious that most people have not overcome this infantile stage in their personal development, so most people's belief in God is to believe in a father who can help them-a childish fantasy.Although this concept of religion has been overcome by some of the great teachers of mankind and a small minority, this concept has remained the main form of religious belief.

Freud was quite right in his critique of this form of belief in religion.The shortcoming is only that Freud did not see the other side of monotheistic religion and the real core of this religion—the core that leads to the denial of the concept of God.A truly religious person, when he acts according to the essence of monotheistic thinking, is not asking God to give him anything, and he does not expect anything from God; he does not love God like a child loves his father or loves God. his mother.He is more of an attitude of humility, knowing that he knows nothing about God. "God" for him has become a symbol through which man in his early evolutionary stage has expressed what he wants to pursue, that is, love, truth and justice.He believed in various principles embodied by "God".He thinks honestly, lives in love and justice, and feels that only the life that enables him to fully develop his powers is meaningful—the only reality of value, the only object of Ultimate Knowledge.Finally he stopped talking about God, and he stopped mentioning God's name.To love God—if we want to use the word again here—means striving to reach the full capacity of love, striving to realize God within us.

From this point of view, the logical conclusion of monotheism is to deny all "theology" and all "knowledge about God".But there is a difference between this radical view and non-monotheistic religions, such as early Buddhism or Taoism. All systems of belief in God and mystical systems that are not "theological" presuppose a spiritual entity that transcends man and gives meaning and value to man's spiritual powers and endeavors towards salvation and regeneration.In the religious system of non-God believers, there is no spiritual entity that is outside the human body and transcends human beings.The categories of love, reason, and justice exist because man has the ability to develop his inner strength in the process of evolution.From this point of view, life has no "meaning" other than that given by man.

After I have talked about the love of God, I would like to declare that I do not think from a religious point of view. The concept of God to me is only a product of a certain historical period; Man's experience of his own highest power at a given period of history, and his quest for truth and unity.But I still believe that radical monotheism and non-theistic religions that do not experience spiritual entities draw different but not mutually exclusive conclusions. Here the question of God's love takes on a new meaning, and we must study it in order to grasp the complexity of the question.Here I mainly discuss a fundamental difference between the East (China, India) and the West, that is, the difference in logical concepts.Since Aristotle, the western world has followed the logical concept of Aristotelian philosophy.The basis of this logic is the law of identity—A is A, the law of contradiction (A is not not-A) and the law of excluded middle (A cannot be both A and not-A, nor can it be both A and not-A.) Aristotle used the following sentence The words express his argument very clearly, he said: "The same object cannot belong to this subject and not belong to this subject... This is the most basic principle of all principles." ⒄ This axiom of Aristotelian logic has influenced our habits of thought so deeply that we take it for granted, while the argument that "X is both A and not A" is absurd. The opposite of Aristotelian logic is what is known as paradoxical logic, that is, the assumption that both A and not-A are objects of X, but are not mutually exclusive.This logic predominates in Chinese and Indian thought, as well as in the philosophy of Heraclitus—and finally this logic became that of Hegel and Marx, called "dialectics."Laozi expresses the universal principle of paradox logic very brilliantly: "If you know the way, you don't know it"⒅.And Zhuangzi said: "One is also one, and what is not one is also one." These formulations of paradoxical logic are all affirmative: both are and are not.There is another negative, which is neither this nor that.The former can be found in Taoism, the philosophy of Heraclitus, and Hegel, while the latter is often found in Indian philosophy. It would certainly be beyond the scope of this book if I analyzed in detail the distinction between Aristotelian and paradoxical logic here.Nonetheless, I would like to make a few points to give the reader some insight into this distinction.In Western thought, paradox logic first appeared in the philosophy of Heraclitus.Heraclitus believed that the conflict of contradictions is the basis of all existence.He said: "You don't understand that what is contradictory is not itself contradictory: it is a relationship of opposites and complementarity, just like the bow and the lyre." ⒆ He also expressed this idea more clearly, saying: "We cannot have two into the same river again and again; it is us and not us." ⒇ He also said: "In us, life and death, dream and waking, less than old age are always the same thing." 21 In the philosophy of Lao Tzu, the same Thoughts are expressed in the form of poetry.A typical statement of Taoist paradoxical thinking is: "The emphasis is on the roots, and the quiet is the king of impetuosity." 22 Or: "The Tao is always doing nothing and doing everything." 23 There is also: "My words are easy to know and easy to do. There is nothing in the world that can know, and nothing that can be done.”24 Like the Indian and Socratic thoughts, the highest thing that can be aroused by thinking in Taoist thought is to know one’s ignorance. "If you don't know, you're sick. If you don't know, you're sick." 25 It is impossible for the highest god to have a name, which is only a conclusion of this philosophy.The ultimate reality, the ultimate oneness, cannot be expressed in words nor in thought.Lao Tzu believes: "Tao can be Tao; it is very Tao. It can be named; it is very famous." 26 He also said: "If you don't see it, it's called Yi; if you don't hear it, it's called hope; if you can't get it, it's called micro. These three cannot be questioned, so they are mixed into one." 27 Lao Tzu also has a saying, that is, "He who knows does not speak, and he who speaks does not know." 28 The philosophy of Brahmanism is the study of the link between diversity (of phenomena) and unity (Brahmana).But neither in India nor in China is this philosophy mixed with a dualist position.Harmony (unity) exists in that contradictory claim that produces harmony. "Brahmanic thought from the beginning revolves around the contradiction of simultaneous antagonists—and the graspable power and unity of form of the phenomenal world..."29 The ultimate power of the universe and man is beyond the realm of consciousness and beyond the realm of the senses. category, so that this force is "neither this nor that."Zimmel states that "in this strictly non-dualistic realization, there is no opposition between the real and the unreal"30.The Brahmin thinkers, in seeking the unity hidden behind diversity, came to the following conclusion: The visible pair of contradictions reflects not the essence of things, but the essence of the felt spirit.Perceived thought must transcend itself to reach true reality.Contradiction is a category of the human spirit, not itself a factor of reality.This principle is expressed in the Rig Veda: "I am two things, the life-force and the life-material, and I am both at the same time." The ultimate conclusion of this thought is that only in It is in contradiction that thought is capable of feeling, and this final conclusion leads to a more explicit thought in Vedicism, that thought—with all its nuances—is only “a finer limit of ignorance, In fact the most subtle of all deceitful manifestations of illusion". 31 Paradoxical logic has fundamental implications for the concept of God.As long as God embodies ultimate reality, as long as the human spirit can only perceive reality in contradiction, it is impossible to give a positive definition of God.An omniscient and omnipotent God is the highest form of ignorance in the Vedanta, and here we see this thought with the namelessness of the Taoist, with the nameless God who appeared to Moses, and with Eckhart's "absolute nothingness." "There is a connection.Man can only recognize negation, but not affirmation of the ultimate reality. "It is impossible for man to know what God is, and perhaps he can know what some God is not... In this way, reason will not be satisfied with any object, but will be more and more eager to pursue the ultimate perfection." 32 to Eckhardt In particular, "God is the negation of negation, the negation of negation... There is a negation in all creations, and negation itself is another thing"33.From this, it can be concluded that God is "absolute nothingness" to Master Eckhart, just like the ultimate reality is to Kabala*(* Kabala, originally meaning "teaching taught", just like the system of Jewish mysticism .—Translator's Note) is infinitely the same. I talked about the difference between Aristotelian logic and paradoxical logic above, which laid the foundation for me to explain the difference between the two kinds of logic in understanding the concept of divine love.The teacher of paradox logic believes that people can feel reality only in the contradictions of reality, and people can never grasp the ultimate entity and the universe in thought.The conclusion of this theory is that people should not regard finding answers in their minds as the ultimate goal.Thought can only make us realize that thought cannot give us the final answer, the world of thought is bounded by paradox.The only possibility of finally grasping the world is not in thinking, but in experiencing unity.This kind of paradoxical logic leads to the following conclusion: love for God does not refer to understanding God from the mind, nor does it refer to the thought of loving God, but to experience one’s agreement with God in the experience of love. This leads to the conclusion that people should pay attention to the correct way of life.The whole of man's life, every insignificant and every significant action depends upon a knowledge of God, not by right thinking, but by right action.This is especially evident in Eastern religions.Whether it is Brahmanism, Buddhism or Taoism, the ultimate goal of religion is not correct belief, but correct action.This can also be found in Judaism.Faith-induced schisms in the church are almost non-existent in the Jewish tradition. (The big exceptions—such as the quarrel between the Pharisees and the Sadducees—are primarily conflicts between two opposing social classes.) In Judaism, the emphasis (especially since AD) is on choosing the right The way of life, also known as "Halacha". (The meaning of this word is similar to "Tao".) In modern thought, Spinoza, Marx, and Freud have all advanced the same principle.In Spinoza's philosophy, the emphasis has shifted from right beliefs to right paths in life.Marx also put forward this principle, which is reflected in his saying: "Philosophers interpret the world in different ways, but the problem is changing the world." Freud's paradoxical logic led him to discover the process of psychoanalytic therapy, It is the process of experiencing yourself more deeply. Paradoxical logic focuses not on thought but on experience.This attitude had a series of other consequences.Tolerance arose first, as we can see in the development of religions in India and China.If right thought is not the ultimate truth, the way that leads to salvation, then there is no reason against people who come to different conclusions because of different thoughts.The story of several men who touched an elephant in the dark illustrates this tolerance beautifully: The man who touched the trunk said, "The animal is like a hookah." Another who touched the ear said: "This animal is like a fan".The third touched the elephant's leg, and he described the elephant as a pillar. The second change caused by paradoxical logic is that emphasis should be placed on transforming people, rather than developing doctrine on the one hand and science on the other.From the religious standpoint of India, China, and mysticism, the religious task of man is not to think correctly, but to experience and become one in the process of concentrated meditation. But the mainstream of Western thought is quite different.Precisely because it is believed that ultimate truth is to be found in right thought, the main emphasis is placed on thought, certainly without making right action unimportant.In the development of religions, this leads to creeds, views of interpretation, and impatience with "infidels and sectarians."It also leads to seeing belief in God as the main purpose of the religious attitude.Of course this does not mean that there is no concept of the right way to live in the West, but despite this the person who believes in God - even if he does not experience God - feels that he is better than someone who experiences God but does not "believe" in God To be a class higher. The emphasis on thinking has another consequence that appears historically to be extremely important.The idea that truth can be found in thinking leads not only to dogma but to science as well.In scientific thinking, only accurate ideas are valid. This is reflected not only in serious thinking, but also in the application of scientific thinking in practice, that is, in technology. Thus Eastern thinking leads to tolerance and efforts to transform man himself (but not to technology), whereas the Western position leads to intolerance, dogma and science, Catholicism and the discovery of atomic energy. Above we have briefly discussed the different consequences of the two different positions on the question of God's love, so now we only need to summarize. The love of God in the dominant Western religions basically means believing in God, believing in God's existence, believing in God's justice and God's love.Love for God is basically a thought experience.Love of God in Eastern religions and in Western mysticism is a powerful emotional experience of unity and love that is inseparable from every manifestation of love in life.Eckhart described this state at its most extreme: "I will become a god, and the god will make me function as his being, and we will be one, not two; Can't see any difference between God and man... There are some simple minded people who say they see God as if God is standing there and they are standing here. God is not like that, God and I are one. By knowing me Take God into your heart, into God by loving me."34 Here we see a very important correspondence between love for parents and love for God.At the beginning, the child feels that the mother is "the foundation of all existence" and is closely connected with it.He feels powerless and in need of all-encompassing maternal love.The child then turns to the father as the new center of his preferences, the father as the rule of his thoughts and actions.At this stage, the child's motivation is to ask for his father's praise and to avoid his father's displeasure.At the stage of full maturity, man is liberated from the protective and commanding power figures of mother and father, and he establishes in himself the principles of father and mother.He becomes his own father and his own mother, he is both father and mother.Throughout human history we have seen, or could have predicted, this development: love for God begins with total dependence on a connection with the Mother God, then develops into unconditional obedience to a God like the Father, and finally develops into maturity.At this stage, God is no longer a force independent of man. Man himself embodies the principles of love and justice and becomes one with God, and man only talks about God in a poetic symbolic sense. From the above considerations it follows that love for God cannot be separated from love for parents.Nor can a man develop a sense of God if he cannot transcend his incestuous connection with his mother, tribe, nation, if he continues at a stage of dependence on a father who punishes him or praises him, or on the authority of others. mature love; his faith can only be the form of belief in God in the early stages of religion, that is, the God he experiences is either a mother who can protect him, or a father who can reward and punish him. In modern religion we can see all the stages of religious development - from the earliest, most primitive stage to the most advanced stage of development. The word "God" signifies both the chief of the tribe and the "absolute nothingness," and each individual in the same way—as Freud pointed out—reserves in his subconscious the possibility of further stages of development.The only question is how high his development has reached.But one thing is certain: the essence of his love for God corresponds to the essence of his love for man—because this essence is veiled and rationalized by more and more advanced theories of love.In addition, although love for people is directly expressed in the connection with the family, it is ultimately determined by the structure of the society in which people live.If the social structure requires man to submit to an authority—to the public or anonymous authority of the market or public opinion—then love for God and for man must be naive and far removed from its roots to be found in the history of monotheistic religions. mature thought.