India being the home of philosophy, it is not surprising either that
Indian religion should take a predominantly philosophical form, or
that there should be a great variety of forms of Indian religion. This
is not to say that the feelings were neglected by the framers of
Indian theory, or that there is any essential difference between the
forms of Indian religion. On the contrary, love and intelligence are
inseparably connected in that religion and there are fundamental ideas
which impart a unity to all the forms of Hindu religion. That form of
religion, however, in which love (_karuna_) receives the highest
place, and becomes the centre conjointly with intelligence of a theory
of emancipation and of perfect Buddhahood, is neither Vedantism nor
primitive Buddhism, but that later development known as the
Mahayana. Germs indeed there are of the later theory; and how
should there not be, considering the wisdom and goodness of those who
framed those systems? How beautiful is that ancient description of
him who would win the joy of living in Brahma (Tagore, _Sadhana_,
p. 106), and not much behind it is the following passage of the
Bhagavad-Gita, 'He who hates no single being, who is friendly and
compassionate to all ... whose thought and reason are directed to Me,
he who is [thus] devoted to Me is dear to Me' (Discourse xii. 13, 14).
This is a fine utterance, and there are others as fine.

One may therefore expect that most Indian Vedantists will, on entering
the Bahai Society, make known as widely as they can the beauties of
the Bhagavad-Gita. I cannot myself profess that I admire the contents
as much as some Western readers, but much is doubtless lost to me
through my ignorance of Sanskrit. Prof. Garbe and Prof. Hopkins,
however, confirm me in my view that there is often a falling off in
the immediateness of the inspiration, and that many passages have been
interpolated. It is important to mention this here because it is