Of live to love

justoneofmillion

Junior Member
Salaamu aleikum,An article to share.I found interesting to share.

Of Live and Love



Wednesday 29 September 2010, by Tariq Ramadan


To live is to suffer, said Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, who were both steeped in the teachings of Buddhism. To live is to love, asserted St Augustine, recalling the teachings of Christianity and the monotheistic religions. Aristotle’s syllogism is unanswerable: if to live is to suffer, and if to live is to love, then to love is to suffer. There is also another universal truth that we cannot escape, even on the remotest island on the planet: if love goes there with us, suffering inevitably follows us there. The most beautiful dispositions of the heart inevitably have their dark, sad side, and can sometimes be especially painful. Being lucid and developing our memories is fine, but it is also true to say that the things we forget, our mental blanks and the things we are not aware of are forms of protection: there is no other way to bear our humanity. Unless we are to lose our minds, losing our memory is sometimes good for us. When we look into the eyes of the man or woman we love or glance at our parents, children or friends, how can we bear the truth of life without flinching: one day, we will have to separate, leave or perhaps divorce, or perhaps go into exile or disown one another. And whatever happens, and without the shadow of a doubt, we will die. In any case, we live between heaven and earth and the Meursault of Camus’s The Outsider is right: ‘There is no way out.’ Then we should ‘divert ourselves’ in Pascal’s sense of the term: forget, think about something else, or avoid thinking. That is the wisest and most intelligent course. Cassius ‘thinks too much’, said Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, who wanted to have about him ‘fat, sleek-headed men and such as sleep nights’. Helicon, the advisor to Camus’s Caligula adds, ‘You know full well that I never think. I am far too intelligent for that.’ The alternative is to love in order not to think. To love is to suffer … to love is to forget. Hecate has two faces. By night she is the moon, and by day she is the sun. The contradictions of life are inextricable.

We sometimes use the same words, but we do not say the same things. The path or way (tao) that leads to enlightenment and regeneration in Taoism allows us to reach a higher level of fulfilment through work on oneself, on the totality of one’s being. We are a long way from Greek dualism and the categories of the West. Taoism teaches us to use self-control, breathing and sexuality to rediscover within our own bodies the cosmic energy that is the essence of the Whole, and to blend and become as one with it. There is no boundary between the profane and the sacred, and love therefore does not mean forgetting, but going beyond contingencies, finding eternity and therefore the transcendence of the suffering that is bound up with death. The earlier and later influences of Buddhism give these teachings of Taoism many different nuances of meaning, depending on whether or not we believe in the cycles of reincarnation (samsara) and the liberation of Nirvana. Despite their diversity, the one thing these traditions have in common is their rejection of dualism. The stages that lead from body to mind –liberation, compassion and detachment –involve a process of asceticism. The energy we require and the goal we seek is a love that has been freed from all instinctual and emotional dependency and fuses with the vital energy of the macrocosm. Everything can be part of the same impetus, the same inspiration: eating, breathing and caring for our bodies, being and our inner life are mystical, sacred acts that allow us to reach an absolute by transcending the self through Love-Compassion. It is the love that is veiled and imprisoned, or the love we undergo, that causes us to suffer, that makes us forget or that momentarily diverts us. This is a love that is ‘corporealized’without a mind, or that is ‘sentimentalized’ and without a soul. It is a ‘natural’ love, but it is incomplete and handicapped. We must know the straight but demanding path that leads from the body to breath[ma1] , from breath to the soul, and from the soul to the Whole. Dualism is a trap, and individuation is a prison. Our sufferings inevitably increase when we are trapped and in prison. To go back to the categories we used earlier, we might say that we have to make a distinction between the love-emotion we undergo (and which can take possession of us) and the love-spirituality that we master, that we choose and that allows us to reach out of ourselves and find well-being. Love-spirituality is said to be a more lucid form of asceticism. Some, like Chaung Tzu, who was one of the masters of Taoism, took the view that we must ‘empty ourselves’ and free ourselves from our intentions and from language, whilst others apparently took the opposite view (as in some of Confucianism’s teachings), and argued that we should seek ‘fullness’ without denying our intentions. On the contrary, the latter group argues, we should direct them by developing through exercise, an attitude and actions that can both transcend and liberate.

When St Augustine says ‘Love and do as thou wilt’, he is not thinking of the teachings of one of the currents within Taoism which, like Chaung Tzu, calls upon us to rediscover the Path, natural lightness, the absence of will, letting go or the ‘fullness of the void’. The words are similar but the demands and finalities are quite different. We have to work on ourselves, and self-control and transcendence are certainly essential but, given his belief in the duality of being and ethic[ma2] s, St Augustine is referring to Christian ethics: experiencing love in Jesus means being freed from sin, and overcoming our natural corporality so as to find the spirit or soul in its purity and proximity to the divine. Such love is very demanding and acquires its status because it does not deny any of its human attributes: the body, its instincts and its temptations are products of original sin. If we are lucid from the outset, we can be free and ‘do as we will’ in the Love of Christ and God. The Jewish and Muslim traditions are similar in terms of their teachings about love. They do not have the same relationship with sin and salvation through Christ as Christianity, but their basic teachings are the same: love is an indispensable element in the relationship with the One, as are the teaching, effort and personal discipline required to transform it, spiritualize it and to experience the proximity of the divine.

‘Love is the key,’ said the young poet Rimbaud, who eventually chose to go alone into exile. The poet Nerval, who wrote in the same century, was afraid that he had chosen the wrong love (the creature Aurélia rather than the Creator), and eventually committed suicide. The literatures of the world are full of these hopes, contradictions and pains. Indeed, they are what sustain them. Shakespeare uses drama to express the truths of what it means to be human. Juliet is the archetype of love, of the happiness that causes us pain. Carried away by love, she realizes that Romeo is both the man she loves and the enemy: her love is impossible. Shakespeare’s formula then reveals the secret: ‘Love is a smoke raised with the fume of sighs; being purg’d, a fire sparkling in lovers’ eyes; being vex’d, a sea nourished with lovers’ tears’. The tormented Hamlet laughs and cries as he tries to find an answer to the agonizing question ‘to be or not to be’ in the eyes and love of Ophelia. Her death by drowning sends him back to his existential questions: the absence of love is, in a strange way, an invitation to commit suicide. Tension, contradiction, pain and death appear to be the food of love. They are also the salt of love.

All spiritualities and religions seek reconciliation and harmony, and try to overcome the intrinsic and basic tension within Man: the tension between love and suffering. That tension is another way of expressing the hope that we will find the freedom that lies beyond the realities of dependency. All spiritualities and religions teach us the same thing: if we seek the self-confidence and well-being that lies at the end of the initiatory path, we must begin by learning to take heed of ourselves. Whilst the feelings we instantly feel in our hearts make love seem simple and obvious, we must still take time to study that love and those hearts. We must learn to love, and to imbue ourselves with the forms of ‘the key’ … and of the doors it fits.

TO LOVE

Why, deep down, do we love? What is the source of love, its meaning, its object? Why do we experience the birth of love one day, and its death another? Why, deep inside us, does our love for our parents and our children endure? How do we love? Why, deep down, do we love?


Life teaches us to learn, to suffer injury, to get to our feet again, to mature. Life is revelation; and when our hearts and our intelligence turn toward His revelation, we can grasp something of the meaning, the mystery, and the meaning of this mystery. There are many ways to love: The Most Caring One offers us love through the very essence of our nature, and invites us to continue our search for the love of our fellow creatures, for Creation, for His love.


There are several ways to love: we can love ourselves out of egocentrism or egotism; out of self-obsession to the point of self-importance and arrogance. How natural a love...and how dangerous. To see the world through ourselves alone: to love ourselves as if we alone existed, and, at the core of this mysterious paradox, to love ourselves to the point of oblivion.


To love our mothers, our fathers, our husbands, our wives, our daughters, our sons and, our senses dulled by habit, learn nothing from our love for them except when accident or absence strike. To become indifferent in the face of familiar presences. Isn’t it a curious paradox? To be blinded by too much seeing. To lose meaning because we are overwhelmed, drowned, carried away by the endless repetition of daily life.


To observe our friends, our fellow human beings, our world, and to ask of our heart: why you? Why should you be loved? For your appearance? For your qualities? For your tastes? To love as we feel, because we so “genuinely” feel. The fire at first, the ashes when all is done... destroyed by betrayal, by flaws, by wounds inflicted. Love that blinds; separation in the glare of hindsight. Another paradox: the glowing coals that are the warmth of our loves, and the infinite burn of our suffering.


To learn to love. Such is the message of all spiritual disciplines. We may love to love ourselves, our neighbours, the universe; we may love to move beyond the self, our own and that of our neighbours; our own and that of the universe. In nearness to the Divine we learn that we must seek, initiate ourselves, tear asunder, give new form, break off and renew. To seek out the meaning of our loves; to initiate ourselves into the secrets of hope and not stop when proof of our qualities lies before us; to break down ego and appearance; to give form to the gazing eyes and all they ask for; to make new the light in the heart and in the eyes and, as when we fast, to learn to break the fast the better to begin again. To be two, with ourselves, with God, with you... a gift, a time of testing, a period of hardship, of hoping.


Near to you or without you. Why do we love? Why do we break apart? Why, indeed? On our journey, we must learn that His love like ours, that our encounters like our separations, are acts of initiation: we can love a parent, a being, his beauty, his qualities; we can love what is and, in the end, know only hurt and suffering. Over and above what exists, we can learn to love the horizon that unites us. To move beyond ourselves for His sake, to seek together the pathway that leads to His light... to love the meaning, the road travelled as much as we love the destination, and our fate. It is constant effort, this jihad of love. To lift up our eyes before us and learn to love, and with that love, find freedom. To move beyond ourselves, to free ourselves from the loves that bind and imprison us: those “ended” loves, sometimes idolatrous, sometimes misleading, and so near to our animal nature. An infinite task, one never to be completed; a task filled with sorrow, with hurt and tears. Here, on this earth, lies one truth: he who truly loves must learn to weep. Life. Love, and life.


Why, deep down, do we love? Some like to bind themselves in chains, others to set themselves free. A mystery. The Unique One calls out to us, summons us, tells us: “Go on! Love! Move forward, seek out, and pursue your quest. The love that will come to you is not at all what you are seeking. It is an illusion, a prison. The love you seek, the love that you must learn, opens wide to you the door of freedom: alone, by twos, by thousands, it teaches you to say: “It is Him I love” and, in the depths of your heart, feel yourself loved. And then, at that moment, we must lift up our eyes before us, nurture the freedom we have found, and bestow all the love we possess upon those close to us, to the universe, to humanity. As we move on beyond this life, or as we remain. Love and true Life.


To love, and learn to leave...
 

icadams

Junior Member
What a great new age, fluff piece.

While I like the underlying sentiment of the article, we could all do with a little more love in our lives, I am a little hesitant when someone begins to put all religions on an equal footing in the way that the author does. I find it, as a Muslim, impossible to equate the love of Allah, subhana wa ta'ala, with the love of a Taoist, or Buddhist, for enlightenment. This kind of article, unfortunately, is just what western leaders love to see however. The equalization, and homogenization, of religion. Let us all be equal, let us all get along, but do not tell me that the atheistic teaching of Nietzsche are somehow the same as the teachings of Islam.

Sigh...Tariq Ramadan. So much potential, so little fulfillment. I like some of what I have read and heard from him. But most of it I have to disagree with. His ongoing insistence that Islam, and the Quran, must be continually reinterpreted in light of western mores is a complete slap in the face. Islam is the universal faith, it does not need reinterpretation, rather we need to simply learn to submit.
 

justoneofmillion

Junior Member
But most of it I have to disagree with. His ongoing insistence that Islam, and the Quran, must be continually reinterpreted in light of western mores is a complete slap in the face. Islam is the universal faith, it does not need reinterpretation, rather we need to simply learn to submit.
He Said that the Muslim Minds need revision not Islam per se and not to adapt to the status quo of the world s dominant culture,but to change it for the better.emphasising that we need to shift the center of authority between The scholars of text and the experts of the context ,and put them at an equal stance when it comes to issuing legal opinions ,that they needed to work closely together,To highlight the need for the Scholars of the text to be closer to the People and their needs more than to the authorities.What we have today sadly is that when you are an A grade student you go to the university to pursue medicine and engineering scholarships,when you are a B grade student you go for Law or literature for example,the rest ends up in islamic studies..It wasn t like this in the past.In brief i understand his way is quite a provocative.When not contextualized in the broader spectrum of his thought.Below is the link to another thought provocative thread that i posted a while ago i de be gratfull to benefit from your input inshallah.Of course for him is the Quraan the word of Allah swt and the Sunnah the way to go but he doesn t exclude the fact that wisdoms and just principles might be found everywhere else as well.
not tell me that the atheistic teaching of Nietzsche are somehow the same as the teachings of Islam
No that is not what he is trying to convey.Silence is sometimes louder than words.What he is indirectly challenging through these references is the ignorance of the intellectual western world ,when it thinks that the Muslim world is still ensnared in the 7 century and that they did not have the "chance"to have their Nietsche and Sartres..By doing so he is proving that no matter how Much we as Muslims might be exposed to sophisticated western thoughts,we only end up rediscovering our faith through that exposure ,exaclty because it is superior.It is a confident and more subtle move if you will.Because if we think about it Nietsche for the matter after claiming that God was dead ended up submitting to his will by dying anyways!.The sumit of their thought died and is bound to be contextualized in history among many other who held similar views.Ours is still alive and ever will be the Absolute Subhanhu wataala.;)

http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=65725
 

justoneofmillion

Junior Member
:salam2::fighta: am fighter by spirit,it had been a long time i didn t wear those gloves... lol.:DAny challenger brothers and sisters.:)
 

Aapa

Mirajmom
Assalaam walaikum,

Good to see both of you posting.

Me..I think it does not really matter; the path that leads to Islam is what is important. Muslims can have intellectual and meaningful conversations with those that seek peace and harmony.
Every human is seeking the same solace. Nietzsche never reached the peace in his life he was seeking. He was trying very hard.

No, everything is not harmonious. Many of the other paths are paths of retreat and contemplation. Islam is the complete path.

But, is it not necessary to discuss Islam with others.

Maybe I am simple but I thought all this was imperative for a Muslim; to extend thought towards the sublime.To find peace and harmony in His Creation. To accept the variety of His Creation..be in color,size, thought, or deed.
 
Top