The other day I came to the part where Dante accuses romance novels of leading people in perdition. As proof, his literary self interviews an otherwise nice couple who were reading a Camelot novel together and, as the novel neared its climax, they fell into the same mood and ended up in the Hell of Lust together.
My immediate reaction on reading this: "Who the hell would read a romance novel alone together if they did not already plan to do the deed?"
But this, of course, is just one example. The truth is that very often, it requires careful planning to fail properly. Or in other words, picking the wrong battle ground and sticking to it is half the lost battle. Or three quarters, more likely. A kind of perverse patience may even be required, as in the above example, "Ofttimes by that reading our eyes were drawn together, and the hue fled for our alter'd cheek." Ofttimes, huh? Each of which times would cause another person to go "What the Hell are we doing??" and hastily arrange for some diversion. It requires perseverance to sin properly. But it is definitely doable. I can tell that by experience, albeit not such a romantic experience as that.
The thing is, this does not apply to lust alone, of course. The habitually angry will seek out sources of anger like a hungry looking for food, and the fearful will seek out what scares them, and the cynical that which confirms their low opinion of others. It is hard to explain modern news media in any other way. Who in their right mind would spend large portions of the day following that litany of ill, if their mind was filled with Light?
And so on. The voice in your heart knows better than I what applies to each.
5 comments:
"Who the hell would read a romance novel alone together if they did not already plan to do the deed?"
That's a great observation, Magnus. I suppose that's part and parcel of why they're in hell, though - that they don't blame themselves, they don't admit they're culpable for their wrongdoing. Rather, it's the book that made them do it. They couldn't help it. They were powerless in the face of romantic prose (which, if it were true, would be the primary MO of knaves everywhere, and poetry would be as restricted as Rohypnol. Or sold as a "marital aid").
I agree, Julie. They seem very sad, but not exactly repentant. Less "oh, if only we had not fallen in love" and more "oh, if only we had fallen in love and not gone to Hell for it". But then, to paraphrase the parable of the goats and the sheep, people both in Heaven and Hell are going to ask: "Why, God? What have I done to end up here?"
Well, the first requirement of life can be phrased inelegantly:
"Shit must happen."
Therefore, there is love to be made, etc.
Attachment to same is the problem. If you read a romance novel and then boink someone, all to the good. To want to do it compulsively and think about it alot would be a problem.
1) When I was a child, life happened to me. These days, it is often the other way around.
2) The Buddhist concept of being free from attachment probably does not mean boinking people and forgetting about them, unless Nirvana means rebirth as a rabbit.
Well, Magnus, I see you're point. After enough experience is obtained, the mature person can then, and should, detach.
However, you should know Buddhism is only a "nice try" pathway and not the correct road.
Do you know the correct road?
From what I have read of your comments, you do.
Post a Comment