Sunday, March 12, 2006

Science & Philosophy

Tagore and Einstein met through a common friend, Dr. Mendel. Tagore visited Einstein at his residence at Kaputh in the suburbs of Berlin on July 14, 1930, and Einstein returned the call and visited Tagore at the Mendel home. Both conversations were recorded and this photograph was taken. This July 14 conversation was originally published in The Religion of Man (George, Allen & Unwin, Ltd., London), Appendix II, pp. 222-225.


TAGORE: I was discussing with Dr. Mendel today the new mathematical discoveries which tell us that in the realm of infinitesimal atoms chance has its play; the drama of existence is not absolutely predestined in character.

EINSTEIN: The facts that make science tend toward this view do not say good-bye to causality.

TAGORE: Maybe not, yet it appears that the idea of causality is not in the elements, but that some other force builds up with them an organized universe.

EINSTEIN: One tries to understand in the higher plane how the order is. The order is there, where the big elements combine and guide existence, but in the minute elements this order is not perceptible.

TAGORE: Thus duality is in the depths of existence, the contradiction of free impulse and the directive will which works upon it and evolves an orderly scheme of things.

EINSTEIN: Modern physics would not say they are contradictory. Clouds look as one from a distance, but if you see them nearby, they show themselves as disorderly drops of water.

TAGORE: I find a parallel in human psychology. Our passions and desires are unruly, but our character subdues these elements into a harmonious whole. Does something similar to this happen in the physical world? Are the elements rebellious, dynamic with individual impulse? And is there a principle in the physical world which dominates them and puts them into an orderly organization?

EINSTEIN: Even the elements are not without statistical order; elements of radium will always maintain their specific order, now and ever onward, just as they have done all along. There is, then, a statistical order in the elements.

TAGORE: Otherwise, the drama of existence would be too desultory. It is the constant harmony of chance and determination which makes it eternally new and living.

EINSTEIN: I believe that whatever we do or live for has its causality; it is good, however, that we cannot see through to it.

TAGORE: There is in human affairs an element of elasticity also, some freedom within a small range which is for the expression of our personality. It is like the musical system in India, which is not so rigidly fixed as western music. Our composers give a certain definite outline, a system of melody and rhythmic arrangement, and within a certain limit the player can improvise upon it. He must be one with the law of that particular melody, and then he can give spontaneous expression to his musical feeling within the prescribed regulation. We praise the composer for his genius in creating a foundation along with a superstructure of melodies, but we expect from the player his own skill in the creation of variations of melodic flourish and ornamentation. In creation we follow the central law of existence, but if we do not cut ourselves adrift from it, we can have sufficient freedom within the limits of our personality for the fullest self-expression.

EINSTEIN: That is possible only when there is a strong artistic tradition in music to guide the people's mind. In Europe, music has come too far away from popular art and popular feeling and has become something like a secret art with conventions and traditions of its own.

TAGORE: You have to be absolutely obedient to this too complicated music. In India, the measure of a singer's freedom is in his own creative personality. He can sing the composer's song as his own, if he has the power creatively to assert himself in his interpretation of the general law of the melody which he is given to interpret.

EINSTEIN: It requires a very high standard of art to realize fully the great idea in the original music, so that one can make variations upon it. In our country, the variations are often prescribed.

TAGORE: If in our conduct we can follow the law of goodness, we can have real liberty of self-expression. The principle of conduct is there, but the character which makes it true and individual is our own creation. In our music there is a duality of freedom and prescribed order.

EINSTEIN: Are the words of a song also free? I mean to say, is the singer at liberty to add his own words to the song which he is singing?

TAGORE: Yes. In Bengal we have a kind of song-kirtan, we call it-which gives freedom to the singer to introduce parenthetical comments, phrases not in the original song. This occasions great enthusiasm, since the audience is constantly thrilled by some beautiful, spontaneous sentiment added by the singer.

EINSTEIN: Is the metrical form quite severe?

TAGORE: Yes, quite. You cannot exceed the limits of versification; the singer in all his variations must keep the rhythm and the time, which is fixed. In European music you have a comparative liberty with time, but not with melody.

EINSTEIN: Can the Indian music be sung without words? Can one understand a song without words?

TAGORE: Yes, we have songs with unmeaning words, sounds which just help to act as carriers of the notes. In North India, music is an independent art, not the interpretation of words and thoughts, as in Bengal. The music is very intricate and subtle and is a complete world of melody by itself.

EINSTEIN: Is it not polyphonic?

TAGORE: Instruments are used, not for harmony, but for keeping time and adding to the volume and depth. Has melody suffered in your music by the imposition of harmony?

EINSTEIN: Sometimes it does suffer very much. Sometimes the harmony swallows up the melody altogether.

TAGORE: Melody and harmony are like lines and colors in pictures. A simple linear picture may be completely beautiful; the introduction of color may make it vague and insignificant. Yet color may, by combination with lines, create great pictures, so long as it does not smother and destroy their value.

EINSTEIN: It is a beautiful comparison; line is also much older than color. It seems that your melody is much richer in structure than ours. Japanese music also seems to be so.

TAGORE: It is difficult to analyze the effect of eastern and western music on our minds. I am deeply moved by the western music; I feel that it is great, that it is vast in its structure and grand in its composition. Our own music touches me more deeply by its fundamental lyrical appeal. European music is epic in character; it has a broad background and is Gothic in its structure.

EINSTEIN: This is a question we Europeans cannot properly answer, we are so used to our own music. We want to know whether our own music is a conventional or a fundamental human feeling, whether to feel consonance and dissonance is natural, or a convention which we accept.

TAGORE: Somehow the piano confounds me. The violin pleases me much more.

EINSTEIN: It would be interesting to study the effects of European music on an Indian who had never heard it when he was young.

TAGORE: Once I asked an English musician to analyze for me some classical music, and explain to me what elements make for the beauty of the piece.

EINSTEIN: The difficulty is that the really good music, whether of the East or of the West, cannot be analyzed.

TAGORE: Yes, and what deeply affects the hearer is beyond himself.

EINSTEIN: The same uncertainty will always be there about everything fundamental in our experience, in our reaction to art, whether in Europe or in Asia. Even the red flower I see before me on your table may not be the same to you and me.

TAGORE: And yet there is always going on the process of reconciliation between them, the individual taste conforming to the universal standard.



8 Comments:

At 4:07 AM , Blogger Marvin said...

OHT! ;-) seriously, tagore is so confusing - what is he trying to say?

 
At 5:11 PM , Blogger Soumya Sen said...

Tagore is perhaps trying to say that an individual's will may differ from that of the view held by the society in general, but then there is a process of reconciliation between them (which i interpret as a revolution to change the beliefs coming from an individual, and the society trying to stick to it, or enter a sort of compromise once they realise their mistake, and slowly things evolve. Thus changes keep us progressing). If you see at a higher level, then it appears to be a smooth progress of the society, as if everybody follows the same set of notions, but in the microscopic level everybody differs in their views, but collectively give rise to the prevalent notions that the society as a whole follows. I think that is quite true indeed. Then Tagore also discusses about music, but ironically enough, though Tagore made it very clear that he believed in a certain degree of freedom for the musicians and singers, Vishwa Bharati, the watchdog of Tagorean culture (if i am allowed coinage this term), is terribly intolerant of even minor deviations or modifications from the prescribed ways of singing his songs. The man who held so much of liberal and scientific views perhaps failed to truly put forth that message in the minds of his own disciples! And even more unfortunately, after the demise of the Master, the watchdog assumed all powers, and was so busy in meeting its own interest that it even failed to guard Tagore's Nobel Prize and other work of arts and traditions that it had been made responsible for!

 
At 5:16 AM , Blogger Marvin said...

vishwabharati is crazy, all right - how could they let someone steal his Nobel prize medal?! even our national anthem, written by Tagore to honour that horrid British king, can't have even minor variations in it's tune!

 
At 7:38 PM , Blogger Soumya Sen said...

Chary,

You are having the same misconception that many indians have about the national anthem. It was a misrepresentation of some important facts that led to the belief that the song was meant to praise the King.
Tagore himself had clarified that it was referring to God and not the King as the leader of the nation.
See this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jana_Gana_Mana
or
http://www.freeindia.org/vmataram/genesis_of_janaganamana.shtml

W.B.Yeats was a great Irish poet. He was a friend of Tagore, and a great admirer of his works.
Once an Indian disciple of Tagore met Yeats. In a letter to Lady Gregory in America, Yeats mentioned that he had told him that Sarojini Naidu's brother was unhappy that Tagore wrote a poem welcoming King George V. He also narrated to her an appetising story he had from the disciple warning her that it was strictly off the record. It concerns the circumstances in which Janaganamana was composed:

The National Congress people asked Tagore for a poem of welcome for the King on the occasion of union of East and West Bengal after the annulment of 1905 partition of Bengal.
"He (Tagore) tried to write it, but could not. He got up very early in the morning an wrote a very beautiful poem. When he came down, he said to one of us, 'Here is a poem which I have written. It is addressed to God, but give it to Congress people. It will please them. They will think it is addressed to the King.' All Tagore's own followers knew it meant God, but others did not." (The Indian Express, June 3, 1968)

The Calcutta Congress session began on December 26, 1911. King George V, was welcomed with the song Janaganamana. This resulted in the following headlines:
"The Bengali poet Babu Rabindranath Tagore sang a song composed by him specially to welcome the Emperor." (Statesman, Dec.28, 1911)

"The proceedings began with the singing by Babu Rabindranath Tagore of a song specially composed by him in honour of the Emperor." (Englishman, Dec.28).

In later years, Tagore had again ascertained that the poem was referring to God as the ruler of the minds of the people and not to any mortal Kings. This was however much before any decision had been taken to adapt the song as the national anthem. And Tagore died before independence, so technically nobody could say that Tagore was changing his actual idea to pass the song as the national anthem. I am sure that had he been alive at that time, critics and political hawks would have attacked him. Not that they tried to stop it from being accepted as national anthem on the grounds that it included words like Sindhu, which had gone to Pak. However, INC decided that it will tantamount to a sacrilege to tamper with his literary work and make it fit to the post-independence situation. Vishwa Bharati was given autonomous power and duties to preserve Tagore's works as Mahatma Gandhi had promised to late Tagore to 'do his best to guarantee the permanence' of Tagore's most dearest possession, Shantiniketan, which Tagore wished to be the home for all humanity and fusion pot of various cultures.

 
At 7:41 PM , Blogger Soumya Sen said...

In a letter to Pulin Behari Sen, Tagore later wrote, "A certain high official in His Majesty's service, who was also my friend, had requested that I write a song of felicitation towards the Emperor. The request simply amazed me. It caused a great stir in my heart. In response to that great mental turmoil, I pronounced the victory in Jana Gana Mana of that Bhagya Vidhata [ed. God of Destiny] of India who has from age after age held steadfast the reins of India's chariot through rise and fall, through the straight path and the curved. That Lord of Destiny, that Reader of the Collective Mind of India, that Perennial Guide, could never be George V, George VI, or any other George. Even my official friend understood this about the song. After all, even if his admiration for the crown was excessive, he was not lacking in simple common sense."

In 2005, there were calls for the deletion of the word "Sindh" and to substitute Kashmir in its stead. The argument was that Sindh was no longer a part of India (it became a part of Pakistan after Partition). However, the Supreme Court of India refused to tamper with the national anthem. Opponents of this proposal say that the word "Sindh" refers to the Indus or to the Sindhi culture and people who are an integral part of India's cultural fabric.

 
At 1:48 AM , Blogger Marvin said...

interesting... so he claims he didn't write it for the king? i sure hope so! 1911 was before he won the Nobel Prize, right? did this help him win it? i'm not saying he didn't deserve it - after all, merit is not always a consideration for handing out nobel prizes - gandhi wasn't given one, but that north korean tyrant kim jong il was recently given one to placate him! sad state of affairs, indeed.

 
At 2:19 AM , Blogger Soumya Sen said...

President of South Korea got Nobel Peace Prize, Kim Dae-jung, not the North korean counterpart Kim jong il.
Tagore won nobel partly because of W.B.Yeats, who was fascinated by his works and campaigned for his works in the west, and recommended him for the Nobel. Tagore is one of the very few guys to have won nobel in the first nomination itself.

 
At 6:35 PM , Blogger Soumya Sen said...

Gandhi was supposed to get Nobel in 1948 for peace, but he died that year before he could be given. So nobel authorities didn't give out any prize that year, perhaps as a mark of respect or maybe from a feeling of guilt.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home