LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT
92. WHAT DO WE LEARN FROM THE 'GREATS'?
Society has generally respected people considered great. Greatness might be achieved in any field, and greatness itself might be defined differently by different societies or at different times, but it has been a general human trait to accord respect to those considered great.
One sign of this respect is for people to look up to the great people for inspiration, ideas , guidance. It is seen that truly great people have something to say to help and inspire others, no matter their own field of activity or achievement.
Pran , the famous Hindi film artiste , who was usually cast in negative roles, was once presenting a program on AIR. He related an advice he had received from his father years ago; his father had told him: Son, when you go up in the ladder of life, salute every one on the way,so that when you come down, there will be some one to say "hello". Pran was in the field for over 40 years and we know what made him last that long! We also know of so many 'stars' who achieved fame, but when they fell, they were alone!
Great people are taken as role models. But in these days of media hype, 'image' is often a media creation and it is difficult to judge greatness.Leaders once taken as great are found to be hollow in course of time. However, popular figures or people in big positions or leadership roles are looked up to , and the media also gives them vast coverage.
With the passing of R.K.Laxman, our greatest Cartoonist recently, media is writing about him: his views on God, Religion, his own beliefs and practices, etc. It is said that he did not practise formal religion, that he thought that religion had not contributed to human happiness, etc. The secular English language press had given prominent coverage to such features.
R.K.Laxman was no doubt a great artist and writer. Does it mean his opinions on religion are valid or correct? Or, his attitude worthy of admiration or emulation? He might not have followed any religious rituals, but does it follow that he followed no rituals at all? Look at the way he worked: occupying the same room in the office, not letting people into his room, never taking work home, and settling with a drink in hand in the evening at home, etc. Are these not rituals?
Look at Einstein, for a contrast.I give below some of his remarks on God, Religion and Philosophy.
The suprapersonal content conveyed by religion, primitive in form though it is, is more valuable, I am convinced, than Haeckel's materialism. I believe that even nowadays, eliminating the sacred traditions would still mean spiritual and moral impoverishment- as gross and ugly as the attitude of the clergy may be in many respects. 1920
My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony that we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly.
My comprehension of God comes from the deeply felt conviction of a superior intelligence that reveals itself in the knowable world. In common terms, one can describe it as "pantheistic" (Spinoza).
I am not an atheist.
I will call it the cosmic religious sense.This is hard to make clear to those, who do not experience it,....; the individual feels the vanity of human desires and aims, and the nobility and the marvelous order which are revealed in nature and in the world of thought.
I assert that the cosmic religious experience is the strongest and the noblest driving force behind scientific research.
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. It was the experience of mystery ....that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds- it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity; in this sense, and in this sense alone, I am a deeply religious man.
The scientist is possessed by a sense of universal causation.....His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection......It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages.
The present difficulties of his science force the physicist to come to grips with philosophical problems to a greater degree than was the case with earlier generations.
Philosophy is like a mother who gave birth to and endowed all the other sciences. Therefore one should not scorn her in her nakedness and poverty, but should hope, rather, that part of her Don Quixote ideal will live on in her children so that they do not sink into philistinism.
I have found no better expression than "religious" for confidence in the rational nature of reality, in so far as it is accessible to human reason. Whenever this feeling is absent,science degenerates into uninspired empiricism.
I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.
What is the meaning of human life, or of organic life altogether? To answer this question at all implies a religion.....the man who regards his own life and that of his fellow-creatures as meaningless is not merely unfortunate but almost disqualified for life.
Albert Einstein, 1921.
Ferdinand Schmutzer [Public domain] via Wikimedia Commons.
These quotations are taken from: 1." My Views" Published by Rupa & Co, 1976.
2.The New Quotable Einstein, edited by Alice Calaprice.
Published by The Princeton University Press and The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2005.
I urge all serious readers to go through these books fully.
The problem is that religion, like art and science, are understood at different levels. There are religions and Religion. A genuine religion understands the differences in the capacities, competence and aptitude of the people and prescribes appropriate ways for each. One who can appreciate Shakespeare should not ridicule a beginner who struggles to read a small poem.. One may follow what appeals to one, but the same food does not suit all, or is not relished by all. There are those who think of the Impersonal, Attributeless, Formless. There are those who can only think of a Form. Both are right. (The Gita: 12.3-4)
The Bhagavad Gita declares:
Yadh yadhacharati sreshtas
tattadhe vetaro jana:
Sa yat pramanam kurute
lokastadanu vartate 3.21
Whatsoever the superior person does , that is followed by others.
What he demonstrates by action, that people follow.
Therefore, such a person has a great responsibility to set a good example, and not unsettle the mind of the less developed.
Na buddhibedham janayet ajnaanaam
karmasanginaam
Joshayet sarva karmaani
vidvaan yukta: samaacharan. 3.26
One should not unsettle the understanding of the ignorant, (who are) attached to action.
The wise one, himself steadily acting, should engage the ignorant in all work.
( He should just set an example by acting without attachment.)
Prakrutaer guna sammoodha:
Sajjante guna karmasu:
Taana krutsnavito mandhaan
krutsnavinna vichaalayet. 3.29
Men of perfect knowledge should not unsettle the understanding of people of dull wit and imperfect knowledge, who deluded by the gunas of prakriti attach themselves to the functions of the gunas.
Painting of Krishna-Arjuna,1823
Public domain via Wikimedia Commons
There are of course fakes and bogus religious persons. But is it not true of all fields? Are all scientists of the calibre of Einstein, or all cartoonists like Laxman? It takes all sorts to make the world.
Is there any universal standard by which greatness can be understood? Every PhD is not a great scientist or scholar. Every famous figure is not great. We cannot go by externals. In these days of media hype and managed publicity, any new book may be proclaimed a best seller. But real great literature is cherished and read over the years. Only time can reveal real greatness.
But even this cannot be the measure of greatness. Real greatness is based on lasting contribution to the enhancement of human consciousness- only this is permanent; all contributions to material welfare or happiness are but temporary. Even mere intellectual knowledge is vain, as it is discarded by subsequent developments. But those who touch our consciousness and awaken our spirit are alone really great.
Laxman was a great artist. For 60 years, he drew political cartoons and made us realise what was going awry in society. But all this is related to particular events of particular times. Those in their 60s and 70s can fully appreciate him. But what about those who did not experience the hardships of the socialist era or its naked absurdities? Laxman was a mirror for the times; when those times fade from memory, and those situations become irrelevant, his art too will be forgotten.
This is the difference between a Rembrandt and Laxman; both are geniuses but one was devoted to an art form which has a permanent place in most cultures, while the other's genius was wedded to an ephemeral phenomenon. It is a pity his genius was not devoted to a more permanent form of art, or a greater cause than political satire and current comment.
Rembrandt- Self-portrait
Public domain via WIKIART
This again is the difference between Narayan and Laxman! Narayan too wrote about a particular section of society in some historical context; but his creations are part of the historical development of English literature in India, contributing an important chapter to it, which is studied worldwide. Narayan will be studied, so long as literature is studied . Cartoon does not quite occupy a comparable place in our estimation. It is not the fault of Laxman but a limitation of the medium he chose. Its relevance was topical in its day, but fades with time. What is the value of Churchill's famous frown captured on the camera by Karsh, or David Low's cartoons, today? In any case outside England? Laxman will always have his admirers.For them, his art matters, not his religion.How does his religion enhance his art? Mixing the two is the work of irresponsible journalists and writers.
By RKL-Info (Personal Collection)
[CC BY-SA 4.0 http://creativecommons/licences/by
We used to hear about "Churchill syndrome". It is mentioned in connection with his "down syndrome" or 'short man syndrome'. But in our college days, it was understood as his having not been particular in observing rules of health, normally considered good: chain smoking, drinking, over-eating, etc. Yet he lived to ripe old age and achieved greatness as a leader. Can the common man take these features as singns of greatness and follow them? Nearer home, we observed Rajaji, who led a disciplined life throughout; we saw E.V.Ramasamy Naicker, who was the other pole.
The one and only Rajaji.
Both lived to be more than 90! So, whom do we follow? Those who write about the freaky side of so called great figures are doing disservice to society.
No comments:
Post a Comment