Indian reasons for & against love

Edited version of a paper read at the workshop Reason(s) and love(s) around de Sousa’s book in progress. ELTE University, Budapest, 28 June 2013. Indian reasons for & against love Ferenc Ruzsa Ronald de Sousa (University of Toronto) presented the chapter Love and Reasons of a planned book at a workshop in Budapest organized around his ideas and questions. The focus of the chapter was on the problem of the rationality of love. Are there reasons for love? Are those sometimes given true reasons? What would be a proper reason for love? In this paper some of the traditional Indian approaches and insights will be investigated. India is (was) the land of love. Their literature and especially Sanskrit drama is to a great extent about love. They have a huge vocabulary for different kinds and aspects of love; they have a traditional and respectable science of love, with the famous Kāma-Sūtra. And they have an equally respectable tradition of renouncing love and all worldly ties completely. And of course they have the only fullfledged great philosophical tradition independent of the Greeks. So it is not unreasonable to expect some clues to our puzzles about love from here. I. The general view Let us start with an old cosmogonical myth. In the beginning this world was just a single body (ātman) shaped like a man. He looked around and saw nothing but himself. That first being became afraid; therefore, one becomes afraid when one is alone. Then he thought to himselfŚ “Of what should I be afraid, when there is no one but me?” So his fear left him, for what was he going to be afraid of? One is, after all, afraid of another. He found no pleasure at all; so one finds no pleasure when one is alone. He wanted to have a companion. Now he was as large as a man and a woman in close embrace. So he split (pat) his body into two, giving rise to husband (pati) and wife (patn ). Surely this is why Yājñavalkya used to sayŚ “The two of us are like two halves of a block.” The space here, therefore, is completely filled by the woman. Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.4.1–3 Although stated negatively, here we have three reasons for love (love in general): without a true companion there is fear, lack of joy and incompleteness. The last one is familiar from the strikingly similar myth told by Aristophanes in Plato’s Symposium. Of course this provokes the question: are we looking for a particular other half, or just any? Basically this is but the common-sense view expressed positively in a Buddhist1 textŚ “Beloved ones cause happiness and joy” (Piya-jātika Sutta). Or, somewhat more to the point: The senseless man who spurns a girl Who’s beautiful and brought to him Enslaved by Love, without a doubt, Is first among the buffalos. This is the prize of being born, This is the fruit of human life, When men allow their youth to pass In blissful union with girls Of lovely callipygean type. 1 The text is Buddhist; the opinion quoted is rejected by the Buddha. Indian reasons for & against love 2 Bawd’s Counsel (Kuṭṭan -mata) 326–327 Which boils down to saying that the best in life is love, i.e. sex. But love (love for a particular person) is also often depicted as a fever or a disease, even fatal – although typically without the widespread European motive of killing your love because you cannot have her. Still, it is an irresistible external force that even strong-willed holy ascetics cannot resist: Then Menakā, callipygous nymph, set timid eyes on Vi vāmitra, who, all his evil burned off by his austerities, was yet engaged in more in his hermitage. She greeted him and began to play in front of him. Off with the wind went her moonlight skirt, the fair-skinned nymph dropped to the ground embracing it, bashfully smiling at the wind. And so that strictest of seers saw Menakā nude, nervously clutching at her skirt, indescribably young and beautiful. And remarking the virtue of her beauty the bull among brahmins fell victim to love (kāma-va aṁ gataḥ) and lusted to lie with her. He asked her, and she was blamelessly willing. The pair of them whiled away a very long time in the woods, making love when the spirit seized them, and it seemed only a day. And on Menakā the hermit begot akuntalā, on a lovely tableland in the Himalāyas, by the river Mālin . Mahā-Bhārata 1.66.2–8 Some sixteen years later we find the roles reversed, for here the girl akuntalā is the ascetic: The king looked at the girl who had addressed him and saw that she had beautiful hips, a lustrous appearance, and a charming smile. She was radiant with beauty, whith the sheen of austerities and the calm of self-restraint. Duḥṣanta [the king] said: One look at you, lovely, has carried my heart away! (dar anād eva tvayā me 'pahṛtaṁ manaḥ) You are the daughter of a king – be my wife, buxom woman! Tell me, what can I do for you? Today I shall bring you golden necklaces, clothes, earrings wrought of gold, and sparkling gems from many countries, my pretty, and breast plates and hides. Today all my kingdom will be yours; be my wife, my pretty! Come to me, timid and lovely, according to the rites of the Gandharvas, 2 for the Gandharva mode is cited as the best of marriage rites! You are in love with me as I am in love with you, fair girl – pray become my wife by the rite of the Gandharvas! Having thus spoken the royal seer took his flawlessly moving bride solemnly by the hand and lay with her. Mahā-Bhārata 1.65.10–11, 13; 1.67.1–4, 14, 19 A momentous affair, since the son born of it, Bharata is the ancestor of the warring parties in the great epic Mahā-Bhārata – and India itself is still called Bhārat in most Indian languages. Maybe mythological depictions do not faithfully reflect contemporary ideas, so let us see an example taken from a work of a more realistic genre, the versified novel Bawd’s Counsel (Kuṭṭan -mata). The young brahmin Sundarasena after three years of travel and adventure accidentally sees the courtesan Hāralatā on Mount Abu. He saw a girl in girlish play, Together with her confidante, … He, as he looked upon the girl, Was pierced at once by Kāma’s shafts, … Now as his love grew manifest, Quite suddenly that doe-eyed girl With trembling pupils found herself A toy in Kāmadeva’s hands. … 2 I.e. without public ritual or previous consent of the parents. Indian reasons for & against love 3 Round and about she turned and turned And with unblinking eyes she stared: Caught in love’s net, that slender girl Behaved just like a female fish. Bawd’s Counsel (Kuṭṭan -mata) 261–2, 267, 271 In all these cases it is always love at first sight – not mere lust: in the first two cases, the affair leads to a new life, while in the last example, Hāralatā dies of a broken heart when Sundarasena leaves her after a year (and in remorse Sundarasena turns an ascetic). You can ask the reason for a decision or a voluntary act. But love, as we saw, is involuntary – and in fact it is not an act at all: an emotional state (or disposition). Causes it has – but reason? It is rather irrational. As Duḥṣanta, the king above told akuntalā, me 'pahṛtaṁ manaḥ, you have “carried my heart away”, or ratherŚ “I lost my mind”. As stated punningly: — For what reason do men fall in love at first sight even with worthless women? — It is meaningless to state a reason for sensual experience. 3 varadatta: Dhūrta-viṭa-saṁvādaḥ. Rogue and Pimp Confer, p. 359 Or as expressed in the beautiful Tamil language: My mother and your mother – who were they? My father and yours – how are they related? Me and you – how do we know each other? Like rainwater into red earth the loving hearts mingled of themselves. Kuṟun-Tokai 40 So no reasons can be given for love: on the contrary, love is the reason for many actions and passions. This is standardised in the Brahminic theory of the three goals of life – dharma, artha and kāma, i.e. the eternal Law, prosperity and love. These are the final goals, motivations or reasons, consequently they cannot have further reasons; although we can explain them as clear manifestations of the power of “the selfish gene”. Prosperity is for the survival of the individual; love is for reproduction; and following the common law is for the survival of the community, without which human individuals also perish. II. Reasons against a love Interestingly, reasons against love are quite possible. At the meeting of the Brahmin youth Sundarasena and the professional girl both have their friends with them, and both friends try their best to dissuade them from their sudden emotion. This is what her friend tells HāralatāŚ True love, with feelings truly felt, Is no commodity at all For girls who sell themselves. My simple girl, for those like us, Beauty’s for making money. For bees, my beauty, aren’t pursued By flowering mango sprays. Bawd’s Counsel (Kuṭṭan -mata) 277–8, 281 And Sundarasena’s companion argues very similarly: 3 The second line is my translation for pratyakṣe hetu-vacanaṁ nirarthakam (in the published text it is “When something is directly perceived, there is no use in stating a reason for it”). The pun is the allusion to a principle of epistemology: among the valid sources of knowledge, a reason is required in an inference (anumāna), it has no place in perception (pratyakṣa). Indian reasons for & against love 4 Although it’s hard, when youth is green, For men to fight off Love’s attacks, The consequences, all the same, Of falling for a prostitute Should be reflected on by those Who have discrimination. Now worker bees and working girls Both clutch a while, respectfully, At their respective chosen objects —A spray of flowers, a certain man— And kiss to empty them with skill. Those waifs of fate who fall in love With painted jezebels like these Will, ineluctably, emerge With hands stretched out (to beg). Bawd’s Counsel (Kuṭṭan -mata) 302, 319, 324 The point in both cases is that two fundamental motivations, kāma and artha, love and profit are in conflict here. There are, however, some further arguments against associating with prostitutes: Though beads of sweat may form on them, An arid utter lack of feeling Can call their hearts its home; And though they quiver outwardly, They’re tough as diamonds at their core. They’re trained to offer all their limbs, But not a portion of their heart. Bawd’s Counsel (Kuṭṭan -mata) 312–3 Since a courtesan’s heartlessness is an argument against loving her, it seems that a lady’s true love would be accepted as a valid argument for loving her. In other words, mutual love is a good reason. (And in this case it is present in spite of Hāralatā’s job.) Similarly, we may infer some possible further reasons from these lines: It’s not from modesty they stretch A covering across their buttocks; Instead they mean to amplify The curiosity of men; The way they dress, in brilliant clothes, Is not to follow current trends But to inveigle paramours. Their mania for portraiture And suchlike arts is for the sake Of showing how adroit they are: It isn’t recreation. Bawd’s Counsel (Kuṭṭan -mata) 306–7 These arguments suggest that modesty, genuineness, varied and refined interests would count as valid reasons for love as well – although not very specific ones. III. The renouncers’ position Somewhat surprisingly, love and emotions in general and also volition do not get much attention in Indian philosophy. Philosophers seem to be interested only in the information-processing activity of the human mind; emotions are considered a colouring (rāgaŚ ‘colour’ and ‘passion’) or mode of such processes, or just a general state of the whole system (like sukha, ‘well-being’). Indian reasons for & against love 5 Due to a general spiritual-otherworldly orientation, love (typically as sensual desire and passion) is regarded a hindrance only. A fourth “goal of life” is introduced, mokṣa, ‘liberation’ from saṁsāra, the unending cycle of transmigration. a) In Buddhism, life is viewed as full of suffering, and love is a particularly potent source of pain: Beloved ones cause sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress and despair. An example for it: Once in this city there was a wife who went to her relatives. They wanted to separate her from her husband and give her to another against her will. So she told it to her husband, whereupon the man cut her in two and slashed himself open, thinking, “Dead we will be together.” Piya-jātika Sutta Since the aim is the avoidance of suffering, with due generalization the ethical principle of Buddhism is ahiṁsā, non-injury: i.e., not causing others to suffer. It has a more positive expression in maitr , often somewhat misleadingly translated as ‘love’ś but it is in fact ‘friendly disposition’ only. Actually it would be really absurd to tell somebody that they should love – for, as we saw love is not a voluntary action. (And if a culture decides to command love for some person, it leads to falsity and simulation; it is as much corrupting as the command to believe in something.) However, as reasons against love were meaningful, similarly ethical prohibitions of certain sentiments can be followed, e.g. do not be inimical. So the general requirement of maitr is meaningful and in fact quite wholesome. b) Hindu ascetics, in contrast, were traditionally looking for a position above the world, they desired magic abilities (siddhis, ‘perfections’), they wanted to get ultimate power.4 Why is it contrary to love and sex? This seems not to be an Indian peculiarity – as Woglinde tells Alberich about the Ring of Power: Nur wer der Minne Macht versagt, nur wer der Liebe Lust verjagt, nur der erzielt sich den Zauber, zum Reif zu zwingen das Gold. Only he who forswears love’s power, only he who forfeits love’s delight, only he can attain the magic to fashion the gold into a ring. Richard Wagner, Das Rheingold, scene 1 The reason seems to be simply that love is dependence on the beloved, so it is a limitation of power. Correspondingly the Hindu saint’s fundamental ethical principle is asaṅga, ‘non-attachment’. But since both Hindu and Buddhist tries to be isolated from society (and earthly existence in general), in a fundamental sense their ideology is non-ethical. It is not directed at interpersonal relationships; the holy man tries to avoid contact with anybody, his whole effort is directed at himself, at building a perfectly independent self. The welfare of the society is not present even in the background or as an ulterior motive.5 All these commandments and recommendations not to love (or, less frequently, to have a friendly disposition) together with their reasons are always general, so their object is never specific – “Do not love anybody”. 4 This enormous oversimplification and overgeneralization is meant only to bring out an interesting contrast and should not be taken as an evaluation of Hindu asceticism in general! 5 Again, this is a gross oversimplification (cf. e.g. the bodhisattva-ideal in Mahāyāna Buddhism); still I think that it is basically true of the fundamentals of the ideology. The actual personality of real-life holy men might be completely different. Indian reasons for & against love 6 IV. Love yourself? In spite of all this it has been suggested that Hinduism has good old and valid reasons for love in the Vedāntic monism of the Upaniṣads. The Vedanta philosophers… discovered the basis of ethics. Though all religions have taught ethical precepts, such as, “Do not kill, do not injure; love your neighbour as yourself,” etc., yet none of these has given the reason. Why should I not injure my neighbour? To this question there was no satisfactory or conclusive answer forthcoming, until it was evolved by the metaphysical speculations of the Hindus who could not rest satisfied with mere dogmas. So the Hindus say that this Atman [Self] is absolute and allpervading, therefore infinite. There cannot be two infinites, for they would limit each other and would become finite. Also each individual soul is a part and parcel of that Universal Soul, which is infinite. Therefore in injuring his neighbour, the individual actually injures himself. This is the basic metaphysical truth underlying all ethical codes. Vivekananda: Works, vol. I, pp. 328 ff This rings somewhat similarly to David Velleman’s Kantian reason for loveŚ the other’s rational will or a person’s proper self. And this is not quite accidental. Paul Hacker showed in his paper “Schopenhauer and Hindu Ethics” (1961) that Vivekananda came up with this theory only after having met Paul Deussen in 1896. “Thou shouldst love thy neighbor as thyself”, says the Bible. But why am I expected to do this, since I have feelings in myself and not in someone else? “Because,” the Veda adds in explanation, “in truth your neighbor is your own self, and what separates you from him is mere illusion.” Deussen: Allgemeine Geschichte der Philosophie, vol. I, Pt. 2, pp. 45 f And Deussen was an enthusiastic follower of Schopenhauer, who in truth originated this idea. My real inner being exists in every living being, as directly as it reveals itself to me alone through my own self-awareness. It is this recognition, expressed in Sanskrit with the standard formula tat tvam asi, meaning “That art thou”, that emerges as compassion, which is the basis of all genuine, that is unselfish, virtue… Schopenhauer: Die Grundlage der Moral, section 22 Unfortunately the famous tat tvam asi does not mean that “You are him”, i.e. another human being; it means “You are It”, i.e. the Universal Principle, the Brahman. And it was never interpreted in classical times as involving love or sympathyś in fact Hacker believes that a “tat tvam asi ethic [is] a logical monstrosity”. Love is an interpersonal relationship, so if there is but one person, love is simply meaningless. Quite surprisingly Hacker does not even mention the other over-important, old and often quoted Upaniṣadic source of monism, the Yājñavalkya–Maitrey dialogue of the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad that actually starts with discussing the relation of love and the self. And in fact at a first reading (in Sanskrit) it does seem to support a “tat tvam asi ethic”: ātmanas tu kāmāya patiḥ priyo bhavati, “but a husband is dear for the sake of the Self”6 – presumably because his self and my self are the same, the cosmic Self. Yājñavalkya said in reply [to his wife Maitrey ]: “You have always been very dear to me, and now you speak something very dear to me! Come and sit down. I will explain it to you. But while I am explaining, try to concentrate.” Then he spoke: “One holds a husband dear, you see, not for the love of [i.e., for the sake of] the husband; rather, it is for the love of oneself (ātman) that one holds a husband dear. One holds a wife dear not for the love of the wife; rather, it is for the love of oneself that one holds a wife dear. One holds children dear not for the love of the children; rather, it is for the love of oneself that one holds children dear. One holds wealth dear not for the love of wealth; rather, it is for the love of oneself that one holds wealth dear. One holds the priestly power dear not for the love of the priestly power; rather, it is for the love of oneself that one 6 Radhakrishnan’s translation (1953: 197). Indian reasons for & against love 7 holds the priestly power dear. One holds the royal power dear not for the love of the royal power; rather, it is for the love of oneself that one holds the royal power dear. One holds the worlds dear not for the love of the worlds; rather, it is for the love of oneself that one holds the worlds dear. One holds the gods dear not for the love of the gods; rather, it is for the love of oneself that one holds the gods dear. One holds beings dear not for the love of beings; rather, it is for the love of oneself that one holds beings dear. One holds the Whole dear not for the love of the Whole; rather, it is for the love of oneself that one holds the Whole dear. You see, Maitrey —it is one's self (ātman) which one should see and hear, and on which one should reflect and concentrate. For by seeing and hearing one's self, and by reflecting and concentrating on one's self, one gains the knowledge of this whole world. “The priestly power forsakes anyone who considers the priestly power to reside in something other than his self (ātman). The royal power forsakes anyone who considers the royal power to reside in something other than his self. The gods forsake anyone who considers the gods to reside in something other than his self. Beings forsake anyone who considers beings to reside in something other than his self. The Whole forsakes anyone who considers the Whole to reside in something other than his self. “All these—the priestly power, the royal power, worlds, gods, beings, the Whole—all that is nothing but this self. Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.4.4–6 This not too clear7 and somewhat disturbing text cannot be interpreted as saying, “love others because they are yourself”: for it speaks also about the love of wealth. But it also does not propose a ruthless egoism, “love only yourself”, nor an egoistic rationalisation of any motivated human behaviour: “whatever you do, you decided to do that, i.e. you want to do that – so you act for your desire only”. Rather it says that if something is dear to you, it means that you (your self) desire it. And further that if you are a brahmin, it means that you consider yourself a brahmin. (Later adds that whatever you find in the world, it means that your self experiences it.) The idea is that in all externally oriented behaviour (feelings for something, identification with a role, or cognizing), there is always a relation between subject and object, the self and some other. And whereas the objects are infinite, there is only one self: so if you want to grasp (understand and master) all these, first turn to the common point, the self. For our topic the important message is that love is within you so in order to understand it you have to look inside. In any case, even if there were a tat tvam asi ethic, perhaps we would not be very much interested. After all, who would like to be loved as being the same as the loving person; or as identical with God, or containing a part of Him – quite as much as a scorpion or an earth-worm? 7 I suspect some serious corruption in the original, and at some points I think another translation would be required (e.g. lokāḥ seems to refer to [common] people or subjects, not “worlds”). Unfortunately this is not the place to give a full analysis. Indian reasons for & against love 8 Texts Quoted from: Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad translation (slightly modified): Olivelle, Patrick (1998): The Early Upaniṣads. Annotated Text and Translation. New York: Oxford U.P. Piya-jātika Sutta (Majjhima-Nikāya 87), original text: Pāḷi Tipiṭaka. Dharma Giri: Vipassana Research Institute. http://www.tipitaka.org Bawd’s Counsel (Kuṭṭan -mata) translation: Dezső, Csaba & Dominic Goodall (ed., tr.) (2012)Ś Dāmodaraguptaviracitaṁ Kuṭṭan matam. The Bawd’s Counsel. Groningen Oriental Series 23. Groningen: Egbert Forsten. Mahā-Bhārata translation: van Buitenen, J.A.B. (ed., tr.) (1973): The Mahābhārata. Book 1. The book of the Beginning. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Kuṟun-Tokai 40 (by “Cempulap Peyaṉ rār”), original text: E-text by Dr. K. Kalyanasundaram on Project Madurai 1999–2003: http://www.projectmadurai.org/pm_etexts/utf8/pmuni0110.html varadatta: Dhūrta-viṭa-saṁvādaḥ. Rogue and Pimp Confer. Translation in: Dezső, Csaba & Somadeva Vasudeva (ed., tr.) (2009): The Quartet of Causeries by yāmilaka, Vararuci, ūdraka & varadatta. The Clay Sanskrit Library. New York UP & JJC Foundation 2009. Wagner, Richard: Das Rheingold, scene 1, original text: Wagner, Richard (2003): A nibelung gyűrűje. Der Ring des Nibelungen. Übersetzung Tamás Blum, redigiert László Király und Eszter Molnár. BudapestŚ Wagner Ring Stiftung. Translation: http://www.rwagner.net Hacker, Paul (1961)Ś “Schopenhauer and Hindu Ethics”. Translation on pp. 273–318 in: Halbfass, Wilhelm (ed.) (1995): Philology and confrontation. Paul Hacker on Traditional and Modern Vedānta. Albany: State University of New York Press,. Vivekananda, Swami: Works, vol. I, pp. 328 ff. – quoted by Hacker (1961: 296–7). Deussen, Paul: Allgemeine Geschichte der Philosophie, vol. I, Pt. 2, pp. 45 f. quoted by Hacker (1961: 279). Schopenhauer, Arthur: Die Grundlage der Moral, section 22 – quoted by Hacker (1961: 273). Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli (1953): The Principal Upanishads. Edited with introduction, text, translation and notes by —. Oxford U.P., repr. Delhi 1992.