Agape (love)

Rational discussions on metaphysical and abstract topics.
Vanadís

Agape (love)

Postby Vanadís » Sun Feb 19, 2017 1:39 pm

Let's talk about many shades of love and try to reach some glimpses of Agapé. Wikipedia says:

"Agape (Ancient Greek ἀγάπη, agápē) is "love: the highest form of love, charity; the love of God for man and of man for God." ...agape embraces a universal, unconditional love that transcends, that serves regardless of circumstances."


Other forms of love in Ancient Greek:

"Eros (/ˈɪrɒs/ or /ˈɛrɒs/; Ancient Greek: ἔρως érōs "love" or "desire") is one of the four words in Ancient Greek which can be rendered into English as "love". The other three are storge, philia, and agape. Eros refers to "passionate love" or romantic love; storge to familial love; philia to friendship as a kind of love; and agape refers to "selfless love", or "charity" as it is translated in the Christian scriptures (from the Latin caritas, dearness)."

How do you understand (and FEEL) agapé? Do you agree with the thought that highest form of love is love towards god (or Satan)? Do you work towards agape or do you see the "love" we underline in the Star of Azazel something different? In many religions agape and other forms or love are "good", but love in the meaning of "desire" - Eros, is "bad". But for example in many pagan traditions and Thelema eros is seen one part of the whole, or even gateway towards the spiritual love.

There's already one discussion about sex going on under this Forum, so let's try to keep this conversation more on the other aspects of love, even some overlapping will occur.

Love is the law, love under will <3
User avatar
ben Shachar
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 11:34 am

Re: Agape (love)

Postby ben Shachar » Mon Feb 20, 2017 11:45 am

I wrestle with the notion of love or Agape as I can only understand it as the opposite or antithesis of fear. Fear is something I let go of at an early age, however I still can experience it on an instinctual level of fight or flight. This is not the typical sense that many people make so many decisions based out of.
I mention fear because I have heard that fear has a low frequency and love a high frequency. The latter of which if lived in a state of activates more chromosomes or something to that effect.
I was once told that love is to look at even the most unsavory of character and think "Vishnu, what a fine disguise you have revealed yourself in today."
Conditional love is not love but favor. Unconditional love is comprehensible by parents and siblings of whom many of us love regardless of condition.
So for me personally, I perceive it in a magnetic sense. That love is attractive and fear repulsive. That we move toward love and away from fear. Both serve as a cosmic propulsion system for the self. I prefer not to use fear as a motivator but that I am dimagnetic toward it.
I need to work more on strengthening of my gravitation toward love or Agape.
I do favor the notion of redemption as a perpetual path and so can view that climb as toward universal love.
Possibly Agape is a thing best felt as most rewarding when striving toward than actually achieving. As with most things the glory is the journey rather than it's conclusion.
User avatar
Insanus
Frater
Posts: 926
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 7:06 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Agape (love)

Postby Insanus » Wed Feb 22, 2017 5:15 pm

I understand agape as the decision to love for no reason (or "unconditionally") I can feel in moments of catharsis as the non-reason for all reasons to continue anything. I don't like the idea of limited number of forms of love. I think love is mutant, schizophrenic, evolutive, tricky and uncontrollable in itself, and agape is a relationship to love, it is a form of worship of love, not a form of love. Mahakala is love, mahakala is life.
Myrkky sattuu siihen jolla on haava.
User avatar
Noname
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 12:27 pm

Re: Agape (love)

Postby Noname » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:31 am

As you stated; Love under will. It's the unconditional loving kindness, residing in the person's will (Soul/spirit) instead of the body. This is seen as the highest virtue, as it mimics the nature of God, as such we become 'as close imitation of its image, of the good.'

And when it comes to Eros and the gateway to spiritual love. Eros is a double-edged sword, its the love of lovers in the looks that linger too long, as it is easier to kiss a lover than to become one. Personally I consider Agape and Eros two sides of the same coin, and when in balance the combination is pure perfection. To me they are the below (Eros) and above (Agape) sides of love, and when in balance, that's where the erotic, but pure spiritual love can be found. However, in our society we are taught, intentionally or unintentionally to promote Eros over Agape, where Eros dominates, which creates imbalance, and leads to problems, such as perversion of personality and one's sexual desires.
Explore until epiphany, and beyond.
User avatar
Sebomai
Posts: 332
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:25 am

Re: Agape (love)

Postby Sebomai » Tue Mar 14, 2017 7:33 pm

Noname wrote:However, in our society we are taught, intentionally or unintentionally to promote Eros over Agape, where Eros dominates, which creates imbalance, and leads to problems, such as perversion of personality and one's sexual desires.
This is so so true. Agape is seen as "platonic love," in the sense of a love without sex and, thus, somehow less desirable than Eros. Which is a ridiculous oversimplification, since we all know that not all erotic love involves physical intercourse and that the true Platonic ideal of love is nothing sad and lonely but, if achieved with the right frame of mind and spirit, the end of sadness and loneliness. It elevates the whole person to a spiritual level and, when that love is aimed at the Divine, it works to raise the lover to the level of the Beloved.

Agape forms the central part of the thought in my essay, "My Banner Over Her is Love." I obviously am not as skilled a practitioner as I am a writer, because I struggle with intense feelings of being unloved, unlovable, and unloving. But I know what I'm striving towards and it is absolute immersion in Agape Love.
User avatar
Nayana
Frater
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 11:10 pm

Re: Agape (love)

Postby Nayana » Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:33 am

Insanus wrote:I understand agape as the decision to love for no reason (or "unconditionally") I can feel in moments of catharsis as the non-reason for all reasons to continue anything.
To me this is well put, and I'd both agree and, on the other hand, see Agape as pure, formless love ( in contrast to a decision), that seems to be the self-evident basis for all other forms of love. In the end, I don't quite see a difference between these approaches, intuitively. Other forms of Love can often be bound to form or, from my experience at least, 'impure' to the extend that secondary motives are involved. With Agape on the other hand I tend to connect the experience of a fundamental unity, and in turn the Buddhi principle as a tangible reality. I think this is not easy to reach and harder to keep up, but in my personal practice something I am constantly striving for. Ad Perpetranda Miracula Rei Unius!
"From Fire we create life."
Abhavani
Frater
Posts: 298
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:11 pm

Re: Agape (love)

Postby Abhavani » Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:17 am

Noname wrote:As you stated; Love under will.
It has been very rewarding to read these thoughts concerning Love from all of you. This gives a lot to ponder upon.

In the past I had a very different (nowadays I see it as incorrect) interpretation to the famous words LOVE UNDER WILL than I do now. Should be mentioned that I am not a Crowley enthusiast or an expert, but this 'slogan' has always resonated with me quite strongly. As a youth I thought it as a declaration of personal independence; "MY will comes first, love comes second", and with time and as I grew more mellow I started to have more and more distance to this 'slogan', or to be more accurate - my own interpretation of it. So I felt like I strongly disagree with the three words.

But then it hit me, some years ago once while I was meditating. LOVE is the underlying and foundational surface of ground UNDER ones WILL. Without love, there would be no will. Will has it's roots in Love, and without a ground to stand on, Will could not exert in any way to manifest itself. So beautifully simple, and yet such a deep realization.

A real-life example of how words have many meanings and how there are many ways to read them.
Vanadís

Re: Agape (love)

Postby Vanadís » Thu Oct 05, 2017 2:26 pm

Abhavani's post made me think about LOVE UNDER WILL as I understand it in this current moment; Love does not come ”second”. It's all about Love – but Love must be aligned with one's True Will (dharma in this life), so one cannot do something purely from Love if it is in conflict with one's Will. Therefore one must find out what the True Will is. Will is dynamic, it's ”Becoming” and Manifesting, while Love is feeling and ”Being”.

But, there must be as many understanding of Love under Will than there's Thelemites. For example Kenneth Grant in Typhonian OTO sees Love and Will as opposites and writes: ”The Thelemic consciousness becomes active consciousness by the formula of ”love under will” which involves the union of opposites. Such dynamic consciousness creates a stress in the aether that causes change to occur in conformity wth Will, which fulfils Crowley's definition of magick.” This leads finally towards Grant's idea, that mankind will be elevated to the higher level when it understands the meaning of ”every man and woman is a star”.

I don't understand how L & W could be opposites, because I've used to see them as a pair like Setian Xeper (coming into Being) and Remanifest. But this is not the only detail in Grant's system that I am not agreeing with ;)
User avatar
Nayana
Frater
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 11:10 pm

Re: Agape (love)

Postby Nayana » Thu Oct 05, 2017 4:47 pm

Vanadís wrote:Abhavani's post made me think about LOVE UNDER WILL as I understand it in this current moment; Love does not come ”second”. It's all about Love – but Love must be aligned with one's True Will (dharma in this life), so one cannot do something purely from Love if it is in conflict with one's Will.
So did yours to me, and now I have a knot in my mind: Where I stand currently, I see love, as in the sense of unity, even as the condition for any accomplished action of one's true will. I think that the perception of unity comes along with the unconditioned acceptance of what is, which thus allows will to act in accordance with the whole, rather than against it. Thus, change of what is can occur, and if such change occurs in accordance with will upon the object of our acceptance, it is aligned with the whole and as such 'true' will.
"From Fire we create life."
User avatar
Nefastos
Frater
Posts: 3434
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Agape (love)

Postby Nefastos » Thu Oct 05, 2017 6:27 pm

Vanadís wrote:I don't understand how L & W could be opposites, because I've used to see them as a pair


As do I. I consider that there is no "âtma" principle per se, but the so-called âtma (or "Will") principle is an abstract point in metaphysical space which necessarily, always and unavoidably radiates a buddhic aura or presence. These two "together" are a monad, which is (only seemingly paradoxically) a unity at the same time when it is a duad. Rather, it is like the symbol of Sun, a middle point of which is non-existent without the circumference.

That is why there can be no "âtmic" work as separated from Buddhic and Manasic, which are the two hands. There is no third hand; the act of the seeming third part is just the application of the two. In a mystic language, two hands create the third when they join in prayer. (The same goes with eyes.)

We can see that from how the correspondence of the atma is in "Will for doing what is right". How can such "Will" be aimed to anything at all it there is no Sense of Other (of Unity, hopefully) and Intellect to guide it or, indeed, to even form it? I think so much of the occultists' problems derive from the fact how the "Will" is seen as something that can be separated from the (Sense of) Unity, that is, Buddhi, i.e. Love or Empathy, the great Other.

Nayana wrote:I think that the perception of unity comes along with the unconditioned acceptance of what is, which thus allows will to act in accordance with the whole, rather than against it.


I think it must be like this, talking about spiritual realities & seeing clearly, but acceptance related to temporal things is harder to fit to love. The knowledge that there actually, factually is great suffering in the world is one basis for my active love as empathy, but still I cannot accept such a reality at all, let alone unconditionally. But, of course one must ask which was the first, egg or hen? Did the suffering help to create empathy, or was the love there to create empathy? Sense of Unity is varied in its subtlety & intensity. Most likely love & some neutral ability to understand reality has been the starting point (even though such an intense empathy can also be pathologized, I wager), and empathy is just a variation of that love. In any case, empathy seem to be the athanor in whose flames the love (and with it, one's understanding of the Whole) is gradually sublimated.

Personally, I've had much challenges in trying to break at least some "Will" apart from the (necessarily still somewhat personal and conditional) "Love". Starting the Path with Rosicrucian &c. ideals of self-sacrifice & spiritual obedience to absolute demands of sacrifice (such as these), it has been – and still very much is – a long road to see where such instructions can become bad for the other & the whole; I mean, where a sacrifice made by one actually becomes a hindrance in someone's psychology whom I have tried to help. Labyrinths form themselves from all instructions, and only this Will-Love-Intellect as a Triad can open its doors – as a triple key. "Absolute Love" would result in disaster just as "Absolute Will" or "Absolute Intellect", because it would create pampered beings who do not only suffer themselves but create even more suffering around them.
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest