Posted by johnboy on January 29, 1999 at 18:10:40:
In Reply to: Re: On Compassion, Solidarity & Interreligious Dialogue posted by Phil on January 29, 1999 at 07:11:14:
Phil wrote:
i would resolve these views by suggesting we perhaps engage in grand oversimplification by creating a dichotomy that doesn't capture all of the complex motivational realities of humans in relationship with God or one another
as is often the case, we might best resolve this false dichotomy by taking a catholic, and-both approach?
we know that eros (what's in it for me?) and agape (what's in it for others? the Other?)are "I don't think seeking liberation for oneself needs be justified "for the sake of the other."
both at work in our relationships, in relationships with others and with God.
the ultimate result of spiritual growth and cooperation with grace is a transformed will
as my will and God's or my will and my beloved's will are merged, the distinction between agape and eros might truly become blurred
to do it for God is to do it for me and, in compassion and solidarity, to do it for others is to do it for me; in this conjunctive approach there will be no converse statement that is not simply a redundancy, i.e. we can say that to do it for me is to do it for others
and thus, i affirm wholeheartedly that "I don't think seeking liberation for oneself needs be justified for the sake of the other." and that when the great teachers of the East speak of seeking Enlightenment for the sake of others, out of compassion, they are certainly not negating "what's in it for me" ---indeed, the Buddha motivates us by hanging out the carrot of cessation of suffering ...and i can relate to that!
excellent clarification friend,
shalom,
johnboy