Table of Content
War between the lines
Quotes and comments from this week’s readings
Ramayana, Yuddha Kanda, Sarga 45-56
Gitanjali, poems XXXIX - LXX
À la recherche du temp perdu, Sodome et Gomorrhe II, ch. 3-4, p. 1569-1605
Next week’s readings
War between the lines
I don’t know war. I only look at it from afar, as it appears between the lines of my books. It is a force ever-present in human history that I have come to fear and respect, for war is like Dionysus. It induces a frenzy, a savagery, that is conducive both to the best and worst of mankind. It liberates creative energies as no other social phenomenon could. For historians like Ian Morris and Peter Turchin war is what allows us to have fairly peaceful and technologically advanced societies. Even though I was lucky to never experience it firsthand, war is as close to a universal phenomenon as possible when it comes to human societies. As the anthropologist L. Keeley observed
Cross-cultural research on warfare has established that although some societies that did not engage in war or did so extremely rarely, the overwhelming majority of known societies (90 to 95 percent) have been involved in this activity (War before civilization, p. 27-28)
There is simply no proof that warfare in small-scale societies was a rarer or less serious undertaking than among civilized societies. In general, warfare in prestate societies was both frequent and important. If anything, peace was a scarcer commodity for members of bands, tribes, and chiefdoms than for the average citizen of a civilized state. (War before civilization, p. 39)
War is a terrifying affair, always has been, always will be. When one is in the thick of it, there is nothing glorious about a battle. Consider this description, from the Ramayana, of the fight between Nila the ape and Prahasta the rakshasa :
In that battle, Nila then swiftly brought the boulder down upon the head of the cudgel-warrior Prahasta, who was eager for combat. Hurled by that foremost of monkeys, that huge and terrible boulder shattered Prahasta’s head into many pieces.
Prahasta fell suddenly to the ground, like a tree cut off at the roots—stripped of life, stripped of splendor, stripped of strength, and stripped of his senses. Blood gushed copiously from his shattered head, as well as from his body, like a cataract from a mountain. (Yuddha Kanda, Sarga 46)
The Yuddha Kanda of the Ramayana is filled with such scenes of pure violence. Valmiki always tries to put a lyrical spin on them by using bucolic analogies akin to the one on the last line. But I think such figures of speech serve not to diminish the atrocities of war but to make them even more salient. The contrast between the peaceful landscape imagery Valmiki uses and the ferocity of war can also be seen in T. Malick’s Thin Red Line.
The facts recovered by ethnographers and archeologists indicate unequivocally that primitive and prehistoric warfare was just as terrible and effective as the historic and civilized version. War is hell whether it is fought with wooden spears or napalm. (War before civilization, p. 174)
War is hell. War is now. All that we are left with is to try and work to find a solution. Tolkien said it best :
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo. "So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us." (The Fellowship of the Ring)
Quotes and comments from this week’s readings
Ramayana, Yuddha Kanda, Sarga 45-56
The Yuddha Kanda of the Ramayana is the War book. The parallels between what Valmiki describes and what we are living through right now, are sticking. The horrors of the war, as in the passage quoted above, are in full display of course, but the Ramayana is not just an epic poem telling a story about heroes and villains, it’s not a Marvel movie, it also takes ample time to reflect on the conduct of kings in war times. A fascinating example of this is given in the 51st Sarga, Kumbhakarna, a terrible monster, brother of Ravana, gives a speech that is very relevant to our current crisis. I will quote it in full and add some comments here and there.
When Kumbhakarna had heard the lamentation of the king of the raksasas, he laughed and then said these words:
Since you paid no heed to those who had your welfare at heart, you have now met with that very calamity that we foresaw earlier, at the council of ministers. You are suffering the immediate consequences of your wicked deed, just as evildoers suffer an instant descent into their respective hells.
You carried out this action, your majesty, without first reflecting upon it. In the sheer arrogance of your strength, you did not consider the consequences. A person who, relying upon his royal authority, does later what ought to be done first, and first what ought to be done later, has no comprehension of the distinction between sound and unsound policy. Actions that are performed in inverted order, without reference to the proper time and place, are harmful, just as are offerings of food to impious persons. (Sarga 51)
Actions have consequences, and a proper king, Valmiki tells us, has to weigh them before acting, for fear of putting unsound policies in place. What the last few days have clearly shown is that we live in an age of reaction. Our political leaders are great at reacting, they strive on palace intrigues and looking at polls, but they have no vision. They don’t really need to have one. The way our democratic systems are set up, in the west, means that nobody really ever needs to plan, or think things through. It even seems as if having a plan or thinking things through is counter-productive. Elections are every four to five years. You get elected by promising a bunch of things. You vaguely try to implement them, but usually realize it’s harder than it looks. They work? Good for you. They don’t? The next guy will deal with the shit by changing whatever isn’t really working, or rejecting the whole thing. Who, in our political class needs to actually plan today? Who really takes time to think about consequences anymore? Contemporary democratic life in the west is about throwing things against the wall and seeing which one sticks. We don’t have the expertise required to plan because everything is politicized.
What we end up having is a world where moral outrage is the only thing that matters. Because of the way our political systems are set up, what matters to get elected is to get behind an issue that will generate the right kind of moral outrage. The only way to do that is to moralize and politicize everything. Moral issues make for easy talking points. I’m right, you’re evil! If the issue your putting forward is the right one for the moment, a majority of people will follow you and that is about it.
In such an environment who really needs to think through consequences? We are left with “sheer arrogance” and the people in charge have no “comprehension of the distinction between sound and unsound policy.”
A king who perceives the fivefold application of the three types of action after coming to a decision with his ministers remains on the proper path. So does a king who desires to reach a decision in conformance with the texts on polity, who pays heed to his ministers, and who recognizes his true friends by virtue of his own intelligence. (Sarga 51)
Nobody trying to understand the Ramayana seems to be clear on what the fivefold applications are. Here are the three possibilities discussed by commentators, as reported by Goldman :
A) The means of undertaking actions, the provision of men and material resources, the divisions of place and time, the means of avoiding failure, the success of one’s undertaking.
B) The actions are taken with respect to the following five considerations: place, time, self, material resources, and purpose
C) The five principal modes of royal interaction with neighboring kings, viz., conciliation, gifts or bribery, sowing dissension, punishment, assassination.
Things are even worse when it comes to the three types of action, as nobody really seems to agree. The most interesting interpretation is this one :
The first, and best [type of action] is applied in situations where a king’s own power is in the ascendant and his rival’s is on the wane, and consists of invasion and the application of coercive force. The middlemost type of action occurs when one’s own and one’s rival’s power are equal and consists of alliance or conciliation. The third, and lowest, form of action is the seeking of protection or a tributary relationship accompanied by gifts or bribes and is resorted to when the power of one’s rival is ascendant over that of one’s self. (Quoted from the Goldman translation of the Ramayana, vol. 6, p. 944)
A man should pursue all three human ends—righteousness, profit, and pleasure—at their proper times, lord of the raksasas, either all at once or two at a time. And a king or one exercising royal power who learns which among these three is foremost and yet does not take it to heart finds all his great learning to be in vain. (Sarga 51)
This is a theme about which I have talked before, and will definitely talk about again in the future. No need to dwell on it for now.
But, foremost among raksasas, the self-possessed monarch should consult with his ministers concerning the timely use of bribery, conciliation, sowing dissension, coercive force, or any combination of these means, as well as the proper and improper ways of applying them. He who does so and practices righteousness, profit, and pleasure at their appropriate times never comes to grief in this world.
And the king who, together with ministers who understand the true nature of things and have his interests at heart, deliberates over what he ought and ought not do in this world in order to achieve a beneficial result thrives. (Sarga 51)
Kings should deliberate with their ministers. Recent works in psychology, and anthropology, by Mercier and Sperber, and in philosophy, by Landemore, have shown that the best way to ensure a decision is the proper one is through debates. Everything should be debated when it comes to political decisions, especially when that decision seems to be the morally right one. It’s the only way to be sure we’re not wrong. I’m afraid, that our current crisis has been so framed as a moral one, as a war of good versus evil, exactly as the second Iraq war was, that we have lost sight of the importance of debate. The West is currently no better than Ravana, acting without thinking, without debate, and out of sheer hubris.
There are some men—dumb brutes, in fact—utterly ignorant of the import of the sastras, who, once they are brought into discussions of policy, wish to speak out of sheer arrogance. One should not follow the pernicious advice of those who are ignorant of the sastras, and unfamiliar with the treatises on statecraft, and simply eager to enhance their own positions.
And those men who undermine all undertakings by foolishly uttering in their insolence pernicious advice that only seems beneficial should, after careful examination, be excluded from discussions of policy. For in this world some counselors, acting in concert with cunning enemies, persuade their master to engage in self-destructive actions, thus bringing him to ruin. (Sarga 51)
Our elites are these dumb brutes who speak out of sheer arrogance. They have been trained to detect the slightest change in the wind of public opinion. They act only on what they believe could help them get elected. In a way, they will bring us all to ruin, not because they are acting with the enemy, but because of the way they act, they are no better than our enemies.
When it comes to evaluating counsel, a master must, through a full investigation, determine which of his ministers are, in fact, enemies who are posing as friends although they have actually been suborned. For his enemies find the weak points of a rash king who suddenly rushes into undertakings, just as birds plunge into the gap in the Kraunca mountain. And so a king who underestimates his enemy and fails to protect himself meets with calamities and falls from his lofty state. (Sarga 51)
We have become our worst enemies and we don’t even realize it.
For what wise man would engage in an action such as could only be performed by a vulgar-minded man of brute strength who does not honor his elders? And as for righteousness, profit, and pleasure, which you claim can be practiced separately, you lack the capacity to understand them as they truly are. For action alone is the motivating force behind all things. And in this world, even the most wicked actions may bear excellent fruit. Righteousness and sound policy may yield excellent results, but so may their opposites. Still, unrighteousness and unsound policy may also yield results that are calamitous. Men engage in actions with reference to this world and the next. So a person who indulges in pleasure may still attain excellent consequences. The king set his heart on this deed, and we all approved it. And besides, what is wrong with the use of violence against an enemy? (Sarga 51)
This could have been written today by people calling for an all-out war against Russia, because it has become the enemy of the west because it’s the right thing to do. This is bad, this is lazy. The argument is nothing more than “when you do stuff, good things may happen. Hence let’s do stuff.” This is lazy, this is dumb, this is dangerous, this will get us all killed.
Gitanjali, poems XXXIX - LXX
As I said last week, the poems I’m quoting are given in two translations, one by W. Radice, the other by Tagore himself.
Your drowsiness hasn’t yet cleared
You haven’t opened your eyes
Thorns in the woods have burst into flower—
don’t you know that?
Sluggard, sluggard—
don’t you know that?
Wake up, wake up
Don’t waste time
Your drowsiness hasn’t yet cleared
You haven’t opened your eyesAt the end of a dreadful road
In a bleak, impassable land somewhere
At the end of a dreadful road
In a bleak, impassable land somewhere
a friend is sitting alone
Whatever you do, don’t let him down
Wake up, wake up
Don’t waste time
Your drowsiness hasn’t yet cleared
You haven’t opened your eyesSo what if the parched sky shimmers
with the savage heat of the sun?
So what if the earth everywhere is swathed
by a blanket of scorching sand?
So what if it’s throttled by thirst?Look into your mind
Don’t you see joy?
Look into your mind
Don’t you see joy?
Sorrow has a flute that follows at your heels
It plays, it calls, it calls you with a honeyed song
Wake up, wake up
Don’t waste time
Your drowsiness hasn’t yet cleared
You haven’t opened your eyes
Thorns in the woods have burst into flower—
don’t you know that?
Sluggard, sluggard—
don’t you know that?Wake up, wake up
Don’t waste time
Your drowsiness hasn’t yet cleared
You haven’t opened your eyes (Poem 52, translation, W. Radice)
Languor is upon your heart and the slumber is still on your eyes.
Has not the word come to you that the flower is reigning in splendor among thorns? Wake, oh awaken! let not the time pass in vain!
At the end of the stony path, in the country of virgin solitude, my friend is sitting all alone. Deceive him not. Wake, oh awaken!
What if the sky pants and trembles with the heat of the midday sun - what if the burning sand spreads its mantle of thirst -
Is there no joy in the deep of your heart? At every footfall of yours, will not the harp of the road break out in sweet music of pain? (Poem LV, translation Tagore)
There is still time, we can open our eyes, we can wake up before it is too late.
À la recherche du temp perdu, Sodome et Gomorrhe II, ch. 3-4, p. 1569-1605
I’m out of town for a few days and I forgot my volume of Sodom and Ghomora at home. I don’t have my notes with me, so I will share quotes and comments next week.
Next week’s readings :
Tagore, Gitanjali, poems 71 to 103.
No Proust next week, as we’re done with Sodom and Gomorrah. One week break before starting the 5th volume: The Prisoner.
Ramayana, Yuddha Kanda, Sarga 57-94