IN these days of terrorism and wars, it is only behoving to soothe one’s nerves by the largess of love.
“Love thy neighbour as thyself” is not just a Biblical quotation. It is the axiom embodied in all religions and the underlying dictum of universal moral science, and the covert message of the Charter of Human Rights.
The word ‘love’ is too vast in its implication as well as application. It cannot be compressed and limited to its sensual or platonic connotations, which are all the more pleasurable and mentally delightful to the narrow-minded. The love that transcends these limitations, if practised, gives an innate sense of satisfaction, boosts morale, broadens vision, brings appreciation which is more than all the acclaim, honour, recognition and applause that follow in its wake. But love in this role is practised by scarcely a few without looking forward to the rewards it may fetch. The only concern of such practitioners of love is the betterment of mankind, notwithstanding the cast, colour or creed of those who are benefited by their deeds, such as Florence Nightingale, Mother Theresa and Abdul Sattar Edhi.
Love is all pervading like the canopy of heavens crowning saints for their virtues, yet cladding and correcting the sins of the vilest of sinners. Love is the innocence of a newborn bellowing for breath and feed; love is the grace of the Holy Virgin — (A thing of beauty is a joy forever — Keats); love is the warmth of sincere, selfless devotion; love is the very lid of Pandora’s Box. Love can neither be created nor destroyed. It is inborn and if it is stifled or nurtured to serve specific ends, it transforms into vicious, venomous malice pitting man against man with such ruthless ferocity as to wipe out the entire human race despite a common faith, and time to time messages of brotherliness and tolerance of all messiahs, missionaries and mentors. Haelock Ellis very aptly said: “When love is suppressed, hate takes its place” (On Life and Sex: Essays of Love and Virtue — 1937).
Love has been the prime theme of world religions and the focal point for their propagation. The founders of all religions have extolled love as a supreme virtue, which not only cleanses man’s misdeeds but also books his place in Heaven. Love that emanates from this source may be analyzed as love for the Divine Being and that for fellow human beings. The two, though not interchangeable, are inextricably inter-linked. They complement each other to such an extent that neither can be considered as complete by itself in isolation. Thus, love of the Divine Being alone (the purpose of which is to seek Divine pleasure), cannot succeed in the wake of any harm, torture or brutality meted out to fellow beings. Conversely, mere lip love of fellow beings without any good or beneficial being practically done to them neither deserves nor earns Divine pleasure. Leigh Hunt, in his inspiring poem, Abou Ben Adhem writes that when Abou, dismayed by the angel’s reply that his name was not in the list of those who love God, requests:
I pray thee, then, Write me as one that loves his fellow men
The next night the angel returned:
And showed the names whom love of God had blessed And lo! Ben Adhem’s name led all the rest
Love for the Divine Being springs from blind faith in His existence, total acceptance of his absolute supremacy over everything the Universe holds — living and non living — and complete submission to his discretion in the administration of justice. Any mortal who claims to be imbued with such love cannot lay claim to any justice, despite his faith in the Divine Being and acceptance of his supremacy, if he has himself committed injustices to mankind. Thus, faith and its corollaries are only secondary if injustice by humans to humans and to subdue the same is the cause of their suffering. Aristotle has very aptly described it thus: “Man, when perfected, is the best of animals; but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all.” (Politics — 4th Century B.C.).
Not only have the seers, saints and sages of the past sung this saga of love, even present-day pacifists and philosophers have recounted the boons of love for mankind. Count Leo Tolstoi (1828-1910) went to the extent of saying that no one could love God or become like unto Him who did not love his fellow men. Even the renowned logician, mathematician and philosopher of the status of Bertrand Russell says: “The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge.” (What I Believe — 1925). To go even further, a noted physician has enlarged the scope of love to cover all life forms: “The ethic of reverence for life,” writes Alsatian Albert Schweitzer, the 1952 Nobel Prize winner, “is the ethic of love widened into universality. It is only through love that we can attain communion with God.” (Out of My Life and Thought — 1933).
Besides extolling the virtues of love, these visionaries have not been lacking in their condemnation of the destroyers of love and life. According to the noted Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison (1805-1879): “The history of mankind is crowded with evidence, proving that physical coercion is not adapted to moral regeneration; that the sinful disposition of men can be subdued only by love; that evil can be exterminated from the earth only by goodness.” (Selections from Writings and Speeches — 1850).
Garrison has gone even further saying that in order to achieve the love of humanity, the individual must purge his mind of envy, selfishness and hatred. And the reasons for purging of hatred have been very well put forth by Martin Luther Jr.: “Hatred paralyzes life; love releases it. Hatred confuses life; love harmonizes it. Hatred darkens life; love illumines it.” (Strength to Love — 1963).
If this is the viewpoint of the lovers of humanity, can any human attain complacency by playing the game of bread and bomb? Or how can they who say “In God we trust” play God?
