There is not in this love (of paramours) happiness in the other's happiness only.
This reference is to the playing of Krishna with the shepherdesses as described in the Vishnu Purana and elsewhere. Perhaps no Hindu allegory has been so aspersed: it has been made by some few debased people of India, as similar allegories have in other countries, an excuse for licence under the cloak of religion. It has been used by the
ignorant, by missionaries and others, as a weapon of hostile criticism against Hindu religions. We may safely assert that none of these have read the original, but merely sought some means to destroy other people's religion in order to advocate their own. Time might better be employed in pointing out the original intention of the allegory by which they would elevate both themselves and the people with whom they come in contact. By taking the other attitude they confirm the pariah in his ignorance, stimulate his resentment, and stand as the enemies of Krisna the Divine. Love is one, whether it be called that of Christ, Krisna, or any other individualised expression of Truth. As long as this cannot be seen there will be the war of sects and religions against each other, and the sending forth of missionaries to insult and irritate, to teach creeds — not Love and Truth. The love of Krisna is deep in the Hindu heart, and cannot be thus slighted with impunity. Yet under all these irritations the Hindu has yet to be found who would retort by any insult or criticism of the founder of Christianity. To the Hindu such criticism of the pure and noble of any race or age is a dreadful crime, involving far-reaching retributive effects. It is a pity we do not think the same.
This reference is to the playing of Krishna with the shepherdesses as described in the Vishnu Purana and elsewhere. Perhaps no Hindu allegory has been so aspersed: it has been made by some few debased people of India, as similar allegories have in other countries, an excuse for licence under the cloak of religion. It has been used by the
ignorant, by missionaries and others, as a weapon of hostile criticism against Hindu religions. We may safely assert that none of these have read the original, but merely sought some means to destroy other people's religion in order to advocate their own. Time might better be employed in pointing out the original intention of the allegory by which they would elevate both themselves and the people with whom they come in contact. By taking the other attitude they confirm the pariah in his ignorance, stimulate his resentment, and stand as the enemies of Krisna the Divine. Love is one, whether it be called that of Christ, Krisna, or any other individualised expression of Truth. As long as this cannot be seen there will be the war of sects and religions against each other, and the sending forth of missionaries to insult and irritate, to teach creeds — not Love and Truth. The love of Krisna is deep in the Hindu heart, and cannot be thus slighted with impunity. Yet under all these irritations the Hindu has yet to be found who would retort by any insult or criticism of the founder of Christianity. To the Hindu such criticism of the pure and noble of any race or age is a dreadful crime, involving far-reaching retributive effects. It is a pity we do not think the same.
"One (shepherdess), as she sallied forth, beheld some of the seniors (of the family) and dared not venture, contenting herself with meditating on Krisna with closed eyes and entire devotion, by which, immediately, all acts of merit were effaced by rapture, and all sin was expiated by regret at not beholding Him; and others, again, reflecting upon the cause of the world, in the form of the Supreme Brahma, obtained by their sighing final emancipation." (Vishnu Purana, Book V, Chap. XIII, trans. Wilson.)
Both Nârada and Sândilya reinstate the allegory in its proper light, the former taking it as an example of his own definition of Love, as . . . "feeling the greatest misery in forgetting God."
Love has been divided threefold in the Commentary on Sûtras 7-14. The love of paramours, always selfish, finds its place under the first or second of these headings.
Both Nârada and Sândilya reinstate the allegory in its proper light, the former taking it as an example of his own definition of Love, as . . . "feeling the greatest misery in forgetting God."
Love has been divided threefold in the Commentary on Sûtras 7-14. The love of paramours, always selfish, finds its place under the first or second of these headings.