As Helonchâ (Hincha Repens) should not be counted among pot herbs, or sugar candy among common sweets, because even a sick man can use them without injuring his health; or as the Pranava (Om) is not to be counted as a word, but as Divinity itself; so the desires of holiness, devotion, and love are not to be reckoned as desires at all.
I'm struggling with this one.
ReplyDeleteI'm assuming the meaning of this is that holiness, devotion, and love aren't harmful and thus aren't to be counted as desires because of that.
I think the only way that you could consider holiness and devotion like that is if they are completely subject to love (rightly ordered love, at that). Otherwise, they're just as monstrous as any other desire.
In that holiness, devotion, and love are themselves expressions of perfect unity, and not a longing to possess or control something else, they are not subject to the disorders of the passions. There is no "other", and so they aren't desires in the usual sense.
DeleteOk, I guess I can see that. Even the distortions I'm thinking of aren't materialistic ones.
DeletePerhaps compare it to the Socratic distinction between things that are always good in themselves (like virtues) and things that become good through another, and so can sometimes be used poorly (like passions).
Delete