On hatred, love and notions of existence

 

All kinds of things float around in social media. They touch us, prick us at times, and are gone. For the most part. Then there are splendid posts which make us pause. And wonder. There was one which may have been a reel or some essay, I can’t remember, but the line that popped up stayed: ‘I hate, therefore I am.’

Perhaps out of habit or a moment of unusual insight, I flipped the line. So I got this: ‘I love, therefore I am not.’

The original line obviously draws from the first principle of René Descartes’ philosophy, ‘cogito, ergo sum,’ or ‘I think, therefore I am.’ The idea has generated a lot of discussion which we need not go into here. What’s pertinent is the ‘I am’ which refers to the fact of existence as well as its nature and meaning.

What makes us, then? What makes us recognise ourselves? What gives meaning to our existence, who we are etc? Such questions have inspired much discussion, even philosophical treatises and of course flippant one-liners such as the one referred to above which make for fun conversation and newspaper articles such as this!

Is hatred a mover, then? Obviously, yes. Is love a mover too? In a sense, yes. But the question here is which of the two creates or affirms self? Both? Yes, in a sense. To the same extent? That’s hard to prove, one way or the other.

God is love, some say. So, logically then, if someone is encompassed with love, that person is godly. That’s tongue-in-cheek. But the fact of love or rather loving will certainly identify a person even if that person doesn’t identify himself, herself or themselves as the or an embodiment of love.

We have heard of ‘jealous gods’ too (Deuteronomy 5:9 and Exodus 20:5). Jealousy is not in consort with anything positive although it can be a product of love. How about a hateful god? Proverbs 6:16-19 lists that which god hates: a proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that are swift to evil, a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren. A loving god cannot hate, one assumes, so one must conclude that hatred such as is embedded in such verses is the work of a careless transcriber or interpreter of what is assumed to be divine ‘revelation.’

To hate something or someone or, in contrast, to love something or someone, presupposes the existence of ‘I’. It is someone that loves. Or hates. If there’s ‘someone,’ that someone is clearly conscious of ‘I’ and therefore asserts if not acknowledges the claim, ‘I am.’ 

So let’s return to the question that follows the first postulation. If ‘I hate I am,’ is true, then does it mean that ‘I love, therefore I am not,’ also true?  

If we count out the extremes (which make for easy but possibly erroneous conclusions), in general it seems to me that which hatred and love can both be given, the former is related more to ‘self’ while the latter tends towards ‘selfless.’

There are or at least can be costs either way, but I can’t help but think that the colours generated by each are different; the one yields dark, foreboding and even frightening and horrifying hues whereas the other paints things in shades that are less hard on the eyes.

Consider the following verse from the Dhammapada (Verse 5, Kalayakkhini Vatthu):

Na hi verena verani
sammantidha kudacanam
averena ca sammanti
esa dhammo sanantano

[Hatred is, indeed, never appeased by hatred in this world. It is appeased only by loving-kindness. This is an ancient law.]

Loving kindness (Metta) is one of the four sublime attitudes considered to be the noblest of emotions and can be cultivated through meditation to foster positive states of mind and promote the well-being of all beings. Including self. Indeed it is something that can help one meditate on the notion of  ‘self’ and its patently untenable nature. In other words, it is or can be part of the process towards ultimate emancipation or enlightenment.

So, ‘I love, therefore I am not,’ is not claimable by the pruthagjana or unenlightened, ‘I love,’ or rather the act of loving, is less likely to lead astray one who has resolved to perceive the eternal verities. As opposed to hatred.  As such, ‘I hate, therefore I am,’ is an interesting notion insofar as it opens a conversation about hatred, love and self or being.

In the end it is an academic exercise which may or may not lessen hatred in the world or fertilise it with love.  In the end, one must come to terms with self, its meaning and the ways it is articulated. Cultivating the four sublime attitudes, especially metta, cannot hurt.  

 

[This article was published in the Daily News under the weekly column title 'The Recurrent Thursday']