A Compelling Myth

 There are times when I am not able to see the end of certain philosophical discussions. And I think some of them are a bit futile, because they mix together things that aren't really necessarily related. An example of this is the idea that Eros (love or libido) is a kind of 'raw' energy that gets channeled into either good or bad actions, depending on how we 'use' the energy. I think that Freud was a kind of advocate of this general idea, as did Rousseau. Throughout his writings, Rousseau kept trying to find a way to refine Eros to the point where it could extend to the general love of all people or the general will. In fact, I believe that Rousseau's theory of education was based on the notion of refining the raw energy of emotions into an altruistic love of all people. But I am wondering if this is ever a possibility at all, at this point in time. I have to wonder, can love of particular people or close ones ever be related to the love of all beings, let alone extended to everyone? Can the love of one extend to all beings? I tend to be thinking lately that the two (love of one and love of all beings) aren't really related to each other at all. The love we have for significant others isn't at all related to a general love for all humanity. Each path seems different albeit necessary. While one focuses on the particulars of a relationship, the other tends to focus on a general sentiment and trust of living beings.
     The promise of channelling one thing into another is almost like the alchemists' search to transform all metals into gold. It's compelling, a little bit like taking something we desire and turning into all manner of different shapes for use. But I begin to realize that any spiritual practice involves a combination of many very distinct elements. There needs to be instruction, guidance, group practice, individuals willing to support the spiritual community, time, material amenities., etc. According to the Surangama Sutra, to use one example, there is nothing we can see or feel that is not conditioned somehow by other interrelated events. Even something as simple as a light in a room is preconditioned by a variety of events and circumstances, such as an open space for light to shine, an eye to see the light, a mind to recognize light, etc. If any one of these elements is missing, the phenomena of the light just cannot exist. The same sort of thing surely should go for Eros. Eros is not necessarily an energy per se, but rather a set of conditions which happen to come favorably together in certain social contexts. But the dream of being able to extend Eros infinitely in all directions to embrace all things is a compelling fantasy: one which often ignores the principles of cause and condition, to the point of pretending omnipotence.