A young man named Pan
who was from an unpopular part of the country
was taking part in a class which was prone to very heated debates.
For the most part Pan remained silent but when he did speak
his questions were for the sake of clarity, although most people didn’t understand
his questions and found him to be a nuisance which in their minds was reasonable
considering his origins.
In the course of events a discussion on love ensued. The class was viciously
divided between those who saw love as a God and those who saw God as love.
At the debates most heated moment Pan broke in awkwardly
asking the two most vocal opponents “What is love?” As if the question
was never truly understood by those who were answering.
There was at once a gasping almost embarrassing silence, which was
only broken by one opponent saying rather annoyingly,
“That is the question which we are seeking to answer.”
To which the other opponent took the opportunity to say,
“We have the answer it is only your conflation of the categories of Being
and Action that prevents us from moving on to another question.”
There was a bit of a growing stir but it was silenced again by Pan who said,
“If we are to answer the question of the nature of love need not we answer first
the question of the meaning of life? For if the purpose of life is spiritual then
it would seem that love is a part of that journey. For surely we would call
the farmer foolish who has refused to sow his field because he did not agree
with his neighbor about the nature of the Sun.
And what man parched with thirst refuses to take water because
he knows not how it is drawn up?
Who then among you is so foolish to refuse that which you do not understand?
For even the blind take heed of what they do not see.
And if the tulip receives it’s life from what it does not understand
and yet rejoices in it’s own beauty,
how then can we who do understand not rejoice?