devotion which cannot be commended ethically and belief in
puerile stories: yet we find that this offensive trash continually
turns into gems of religious thought unsurpassed in the annals of
Buddhism and Christianity.

The doctrine of bhakti is common to both Vishnuites and Sivaites. It
is perhaps in general estimation associated with the former more than
with the latter, but this is because the Bhagavad-gita and various
forms of devotion to Krishna are well known, whereas the Tamil
literature of Dravidian Sivaism is ignored by many European scholars.
One might be inclined to suppose that the emotional faith sprang up
first in the worship of Vishnu, for the milder god seems a natural
object for love, whereas Siva has to undergo a certain transformation
before he can evoke such feelings. But there is no evidence that this
is the historical development of the bhakti sentiment, and if the
Bhagavad-gita is emphatic in enjoining the worship of Krishna only,
the Svetasvatara and Maitrayaniya Upanishads favour Siva, and he is
abundantly extolled in many parts of the Mahabharata. Here, as so
often, exact chronology fails us in the early history of these sects,
but it is clear that the practice of worshipping Siva and Vishnu, as
being each by himself all-sufficient, cannot have begun much later
than the Christian era and may have begun considerably earlier, even
though people did not call themselves Saivas or Vaishnavas.

Bhakti is often associated with the doctrine of the playfulness of
God. This idea--so strange to Europe[433]--may have its roots partly
in the odd non-moral attributes of some early deities. Thus the Rudra
of the Satarudriya hymn is a queer character and a trickster. But it
soon takes a philosophical tinge and is used to explain the creation
and working of the universe which is regarded not as an example of
capricious, ironical, inscrutable action, but rather as manifesting
easy, joyous movement and the exuberant rhythm of a dance executed for
its own sake. The European can hardly imagine a sensible person doing
anything without an object: he thinks it almost profane to ascribe
motiveless action to the Creator: he racks his brain to discover any
purpose in creation which is morally worthy and moderately in accord
with the facts of experience. But he can find none. The Hindu, on the
contrary, argues that God being complete and perfect cannot be
actuated by aims or motives, for all such impulses imply a desire