I quickly read the transcript
again and it really is
rather stupid [immature is probably the better word] and this is why:
The first one being, this idea of unselfish love being a love that's shared equally through all things. And in Mahayana Buddhism, that is the ideal that they're striving for. And I think that we, as individuals, can also strive for that ideal. .... But I think that the expression of love in a small context, in family, between friends, and so on, is an expression of that larger instinct, which is the instinct to become one with all. That sounds like "guru-speak", but I think it follows, from what we know about Taoism, and about Zen, and how it is a monistic reality. All things are connected. And we do need to learn to have the same regard for all things.
Understanding or experiencing unity does not give rise to love
, as love in all its forms is a form of preference
, it's always a selection. Loving all would become technically indifference, since one loves someone's death as much as her birth, her health just as much as her being ill. She will not appreciate that
kind of love.
This is why the love in a small context is not a reflection of the larger "instinct", simply because it's also countering
it, as it clearly selects and prefers, it creates all forms of boundaries and exclusives ("you are special to me", "you are an emotional priority since you are related", etc). It's selfish love all the way, self in the sense these loves reinforce ones identity as lover, family member, etc. The boundaries and ties define
and need, no desire
reinforcements all the time
. These small scale unities, while potentially a stepping stone to something larger, now become quickly anchor stones.
What happens in this twisted logic James presents here, is that the smaller context is projected
onto the divine, as we're still selecting parts of existence and being, as extensions of ourselves, still creating excuses
for the self, our lifestyle, our ways, to perpetuate. What one ends up with is extended family and self-love, repackaged as "Zen" and "Tao", enabling these as promotion for the smaller contexts and little loves, never having to taste its full poison and self-destruction.
Yeah, so it is
pretty numbing and worse: deceitful.