Mozart’s secrets

What new information can be gathered from yet another biography of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart that has not been said in the hundreds (some say more than two thousand) of this musician’s life stories? I am not an expert on Mozart, but some facts are relatively known by all those interested in music. Paul Johnson’s Mozart. A Life (Viking, 2013, pp. 164) is not an academic biography (the author does not cite where his quotations from others come from), nor a biography written for composers by a composer (like the Beethoven’s biography discussed in my post below (Beethoven’s tears). The book is a quick read, written by an obvious aficionado. There is an Epilogue/Appendix by Daniel Johnson entitled “Mozart in London” dealing with Mozart’s visit to that town; this appendix is more a panegyric to London than anything else. The book closes with a short section on Further Reading followed by an Index. My comments are based on what I knew about Mozart’s life and those I found in Johnson’s book.

Mozart and languages

It is part of Mozart’s lore that when he and his sister Nannerl were young, they invented a secret language. It would be interesting to find out what the form of this language was and whether they kept the knowledge of it. Johnson mentions that Mozart probably learnt how to read music notes before knowing how to read words. Not only that, but his facility with learning languages is also brought up: “His father taught him Latin without difficulty. But English he picked up for himself, and the following year he mastered a good deal of Italian. Years after, he is recorded as speaking English fluently and with a good accent.” (p. 14; source of information not indicated). The biography does not go deeper into this topic. One can surmise that as regards Latin, it was the language of the Catholic mass, and as regards Italian, it was the language of the opera, so Mozart had to be in contact with these languages weekly, if not daily. It would be an interesting research to delve into the process of learning languages in Mozart’s time, and especially by him.

Gaieties of life or complexity of character?

Johnson frequently underlines the fact that Mozart’s character leaned greatly towards cheerfulness. “The great thing about Mozart, one reason why people liked him so much, was that he added hugely to the gaieties of life. Gay himself by nature, he saw no reason why people should not enjoy a little innocent pleasure, or not-so-innocent pleasure, for that matter.” (p. 61) Dances, jokes, double-entendres, musical jokes, billiards, all contributed to this enjoyment of life.  He loved to dance, and he composed many dance pieces (minuets, gavottes, country dances, waltzes and others), and music for ballet. Family and friends gatherings offered the occasions for not only playing music, trying his new compositions, and discussing them, but also for exchanging new jokes and basically having fun. Mozart’s membership in the Freemasons is well known. It is less discussed (one example may be from the Catholic side https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/mozart-masonry-and-catholicism) how this membership, whose purpose is very far from having fun, added to the complexity of Mozart’s character, since gaiety and Masonry have very different rules and may have clashed in the composer’s mind. Add to this Mozart’s faith and his relationship to the Catholic church. Clearly, he was able to incorporate all this in his music, even though his joy, Catholicism and Freemasonry may have clashed, or maybe just because of this clash he was able to create such musical masterpieces.

Offending the ear

In a letter to his father, Mozart writes about the parts in his The Abduction from the Seraglio. There is an interesting thought which Johnson does not dwell on:

… passions, whether violent or not, must never be expressed to the point of disgust, and as music, even in the most terrible situations, must never offend the ear, but must please the listener, or in other words must never cease to be music… (pp. 84-85)

So many questions come to mind stemming from this sentence: What is disgust? How is it expressed in music? What does ‘offending the ear’ mean? Why does Mozart want to please the listener? Is it the composer’s duty to please the listener? Do we have here Mozart’s definition of music as something that does not offend the ear and pleases the listener? Is this definition applicable only to compositions written in the classical style or can/should it be generalized? This Mozart’s opinion perhaps explains why his compositions have been called ‘elegant’ (I don’t remember by whom).

Creating musical problems

Johnson writes, on p. 95, “Because of his early training and exceptional musical intelligence, Mozart found most things easy and loved creating problems for himself and so, invariably, for singers and players. As his letters to his father show again and again, he knew exactly when he made his work hard to play and harder still to get exactly right. It is not true to say that he invented hard passages entirely for their own sake – that would have been perverse and unmusical – but to get an effect, he was ready to make the orchestra “sweat,” as he put it, and the singers to give their utmost.”

Interestingly, Beethoven, too, was prone to compose hard sections and pieces, and he too, was not worried about how the members of the orchestra felt about it (he sent them home to practice!). My interest here stems from the fact that the idea of “difficulty” underpins the manner in which geniuses operate – i.e., they cause their aims to converge at any cost. But there are different levels of difficulty and different types of it. Each pianist has to decide how to approach the difficulties, for ex., found in he sonata K457. From a general perspective, the modern age shuns difficulties, learners are forced to “have fun” learning.

In conclusion, this biography opened up more questions and more topics to delve into, rather than providing answer and solutions to existing queries. It does, moreover, ask us to think slightly differently not about Mozart himself, but about the closest people to him, for ex., we should consider whether his father was really such a monster as he usually is portrayed, or whether Constance was really such a bad housewife as has been written about her. All in all, whether you love Mozart’s music, or not, this biography will not change your mind about this genial composer.

Founding a theist religion: Joseph Smith

After having visited Salt Lake City in June 2022, I became interested in the origins of Mormon beliefs. It was suggested that I read Joseph Smith. Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Lyman Bushman (Knopf, New York, 2006) and No man knows my history. The Life of Joseph Smith the Mormon Prophet by Fawn M. Brodie (Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, Knopf, 1971). Bushman admits to being a practicing Mormon, and Brodie was excommunicated from the Mormon church after having published this book. She had identified herself for most of her adult life as a Mormon heretic. Therefore, the two books give us an interesting possibility of comparing biographies of Joseph Smith from two distinct and divergent perspectives. It is to be kept in mind, however, that Fawn Brodie’s biography precedes that of Richard Bushman by 45 years.

Both biographies rest on firm and deeply engaged historical scholarship, using as many primary sources as possible, as well as a wealth of secondary publications on the topic. There are apparent differences in the manner in which the authors treat Joseph Smith. From the outset, the titles suggests two implicit directions in handling Joseph Smith’s life. Even though both titles are taken from Joseph Smith’s own writings, Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling conjures up images of an uncouth, unlearned, unpredictable, self-reliant man who becomes God’s mouthpiece. Brodie’s No man knows my history suggests that as much as we would like to have a clear picture, there are many unanswered questions about Joseph Smith’s life. However, the most obvious difference is the fact that Brodie never underestimates Joseph Smith’s knowledge, talent, and innate abilities, whereas Bushman sustains the Mormon Church’s line. Brodie writes: “Far from being the fruit of an obsession, the Book of Mormon is a useful key to Joseph’s complex and frequently baffling character. For it clearly reveals in him what both orthodox Mormon histories and unfriendly testimony deny him: a measure of learning and a fecund imagination. The Mormon Church has exaggerated the ignorance of its prophet, since the more meager his learning, the more divine must be the book.” (p. 69, the bold lettering is mine)

Notwithstanding Bushman’s ability to cover and describe the pro- and anti-Mormon opinions, for him, Joseph Smith is the Prophet and his revelations are unquestioned as to their provenance and meaning. Brodie, on the other hand, claims that Joseph Smith possessed great “talent that went into the creation of his revelations” (footnote, p. 123), making him a self-made and self-proclaimed prophet and visionary.

The authors agree in principle on the following points, but they treat their causes and consequences for the development of Joseph Smith’s life story differently:

1. The Book of Mormon is a fundamental, crucial publication for the Mormons. However, the authors give it very different role as far as the life of Joseph Smith is concerned. Bushman adheres to the orthodox stance, that is, the Book of Mormon is the Mormon Bible, and never questions its authenticity or content. On the other hand, as much as she is aware of the Book‘s importance to the religion, Brodie adds other layers of meaning to it. According to her, the Book of Mormon is literary fiction (“frontier fiction” p. 67) which reflects Joseph Smith’s struggle with competition he felt with his brothers (lots of fratricide – and patricide – in the Book). Moreover, the Book “provides tantalizing clues to the conflicts raging within Joseph Smith as to the truth or spuriousness of his magic powers and his visionary claims. But it serves only to suggest the intensity of the conflict, not to explain it. Why was this gifted young man compelled to transform his dreams into visions, to insist that his literary fantasies were authentic history engraved upon golden plates, to hold stoutly that the hieroglyphics on the Egyptian papyri he bought from Michael Chandler were actually words of the patriarch Abraham? Why did he feel compelled to resort to such obviously transparent devices as to write into both his Book of Mormon and his corrected version of the Bible prophecies of his own coming?” (p. 417) Brodie also looks at the scientific basis of some of the connections between the Mormon Bible and historical findings regarding the native tribes across America, findings which make questioning of the basis of the whole Book insistent and necessary.

2. Joseph Smith was wholly the product of his time. He absorbed, by osmosis if not by actual participation, the religious ferment, the earnestness of seers, the energy of the revivalist meetings, the pronouncements of visionaries, the spiritual hunger that marked the first decades of the 19th century. He must have also observed the schisms and splits of the Methodists, Baptists as well as the creation of the Shakers and other movements. The Bible (Old and New Testament) were read publicly at meetings, and at home. There is no doubt that Joseph Smith was used to reading and discussing the Bible at home and in public gatherings. But all this ferment must also have created a great perplexity in his mind which he needed to remove.

3. Not only was Joseph Smith steeped in the religious ferment of his time, he also succeeded in fulfilling the expectations of so many to embark on a new road toward salvation. According to Brodie, “The moment was auspicious in American history for the rise of a prophet of real stature. Although the authority and tradition of the Christian religion were decomposing in the New World’s freedom, there was a counter-desire to escape from disorder and chaos. The broken unity of Christianity was laboring at its own reconstruction.” (pp. 90-91)

4. Theistic and religious visions and revelations need to be structured around individuals who sustain them, elaborate on them, and are able and willing to teach and explain them. Whether it was by divine power as a prophet (Bushman) or by skillful manipulation of his knowledge of people and history (Brodie), his ability to sustain his “visions” and bolster them with an organization brought about the birth of a new off-shoot of the Christian church. According to Bushman, “Almost all of his [Joseph’s] major theological innovations involved the creation of institutions – the Church, the City of Zion, the School of the Prophets, the priesthood, the temple. Joseph thought institutionally more than any other visionary of his time, and the survival of his movement can largely be attributed to this gift”. Also, “Mormonism succeeded when other charismatic movements foundered on disputes and irreconcilable ill feelings partly because of the governing mechanisms Joseph put in place early in the church’s history.” (p.251) Brodie, too, gives specific examples of Joseph Smith’s need to organize his followers. For example, “By ordaining every male convert a member of his priesthood he used the popular and democratic sentiment that all who felt the impulse had the right to preach. Any man could proclaim the gospel provided that he subjected himself to the ultimate authority of the prophet.” (p.100)

5. The founder of the church has to rely on his converts’ support and belief that he truly speaks for God. One of the requirements of leadership is charisma: and many accounts of Joseph Smith’s person speak of him as a charismatic, handsome man (Bushman, p. 437). Regarding Joseph’s sense of himself, Bushman claims that “In public and private, he spoke and acted as if guided by God. All the doctrines, plans, programs, and claims were, in his mind, the mandates of heaven. They came to him as requirements, with a kind of irresistible certainty.” (p. 437) Brodie agrees, but instead of God, she gives credit to Joseph’s “intuitive understanding”: “A careful scrutiny of the Book of Mormon and the legendary paraphernalia obscuring its origin discloses not only Joseph’s inventive and eclectic nature but also his magnetic influence over his friends. … His natural talent as a leader included first of all an intuitive understanding of his followers, which led them to believe he was genuinely clairvoyant.”(p. 73) She mentions that everyone notices Joseph Smith’s “magnificent self-assurance” (294) People “build for him, preached for him, and made unbelievable sacrifices to carry out his orders, not only because they were convinced that he was God’s prophet, but also because they loved him as a man.” (p. 294) It helped that he had a sense of destiny (209).

6. Wherever the early Mormons went, they invited hate, suspicion, and antagonism. For example, Bushman states that “[in Nauvoo] anti-Mormons feared the charter, the legion, and the Prophet’s combination of religious and civil authority. …Mormon domination at the polls… Bringing God into the government created an alliance most Americans had rejected after the Revolution.” (pp. 500-501). Non-Mormons believed Mormons were abolitionists (p. 553). To critics, “the Church looked like an authoritarian regime with Joseph as the potentate….His was a religion for and by the people. It was not of the people – electoral democracy was absent – but if democracy means participation in government, no church was more democratic. Joseph was a plain man himself, and he let plain men run the councils and preside over the congregations. … In his theology, unexceptional people could aspire to the highest imaginable glory. In belated recognition of this populist side, Joseph Smith’s Mormonism came to be understood in the twentieth century as an American religion” (p.559). In a meeting it was declared that the Mormons are “a set of fanatics and impostors…a pest to the community at large” (p. 358) Brodie, in her deeper analysis, asks: “Was there something intrinsically alien in Mormonism that continually invited barbarity even in the land of the free? It could not have been the theology, which, however, challenging, was really a potpourri of American religious thinking spiced with the fundamental ideal of inevitable progress. Nor could it have been the economy, which had shifted from communism to free enterprise and then to autarchy. Wherever the Mormons went, the citizens resented their self-righteousness, their unwillingness to mingle with the crowd, their intense consciousness of superior destiny. But these were negligible factors in creating the ferocious antagonisms of Missouri and Illinois. Actually, each migration had risen out of a special set of circumstances. … opportunistic… apostate … slavery and Indian issues …political exploitation of Mormon numbers … [non-Mormons] hated Joseph Smith because thousands followed him blindly and slavishly.” (p. 380) Also, “anti-Mormonism in Illinois was much more dangerous than it had been in Missouri, because it had a rock-bound moral foundation in the American fear of despotism.” (p. 381)

7. Economical concerns were a priority for Joseph Smith, second only to theological considerations. Being always in debt (personally and collectively), and sometimes in exorbitant, tens-of-thousands of dollars debt, must have weighed heavily in Joseph Smith. Bushman mentions that “Joseph practiced capitalism without the spirit of capitalism” (p. 503), which seems to exonerate him from any moral criticism. But Joseph Smith had always looked for wealth, ever since his youth when he searched for gold and treasure with his magic seer-stone. Furthermore, as Brodie explains, “The poverty, sacrifice, and suffering that dogged the Saints resulted largely from clashes with their neighbors over social and economic issues. Though they may have gloried in their adversity, they certainly did not invite it. Wealth and power they considered basic among the blessings both of earth and of heaven, and if they were to be denied them in this life, then they must assuredly enjoy them in the next.” (pp. 187-188)

8. Polygamy. It was inevitable that the injunction to wed multiple wives would create dissent and cause the converts to struggle with the idea of multiple marriage, since it seemed like a breach of the moral law. This revelation was given as a commandment on account of two reasons: polygamy was allowed in the Bible and, according to the new dogma, it was the only path that leads to rising closer to God in eternity, i.e., through wide kinship. Bushman explains that “Joseph did not marry women to form a warm, human companionship, but to create a network of related wives, children, and kinsmen that would endure into the eternities. The revelation on marriage promised Joseph an “hundred fold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.” Like Abraham of old, Joseph yearned for familial plentitude. He did not lust for women so much as he lusted for kin.” (p. 440) Clearly, this is the Church’s position, which was later repealed by a law, the only time that general politics encroached on Mormon habits. Bushman never looks at plural marriage from the woman’s perspective. Not surprisingly, Brodie devotes many more pages to the discussion of polygamy, to naming and numbering Joseph Smith’s (48 known) wives and to analyzing the acceptance or denial of this injunction. She describes Joseph Smith as “gregarious, expansive, and genuinely fond of people … his theology …became an ingenuous blend of supernaturalism and materialism, which promised in heaven a continuation of all earthly pleasures – work, wealth, sex, and power.” (pp. 294-295). Inexorably, then, but only after numerous battles and indecision, one of the revelations commands Joseph Smith to make plural marriage a law. Brodie investigates the possible reasons for the acceptance or denial of this injunction by the Mormons. Even though Joseph Smith kept his plural marriages a secret before his congregation until 1842, his wife Emma knew about at least two of them. She was very much against this new custom. Brodie offers some practical justifications for multiple wives: “…the true measure of the magnetism of plural marriage can be seen best in the attitude of the Mormon women. They required very little more persuasion than the men, though the reasons are not so obvious. … Nauvoo was a town full of “church widows,” whose husbands were out proselyting…and who found polyandry to their liking. … Nauvoo was troubled by the old problem of the separated but undivorced female convert. Divorce was usually impossible, and so many women were pouring into the town eager to marry again that it was difficult for the church to maintain the discipline that would have been normal in a settled community. …It was easy, therefore, for many of the penniless and lonely women converts to slip into polygamy.” (p. 304) But there were also many women who did not need to resort to this expedient and who did not agree with this commandment.

To complete the brief summary of certain interesting points, here are a number of (for me) unanswered questions to which neither of the biographers dedicated a deep analysis.

The question of “revelation”. Bushman writes that “To Joseph’s mind, revelation functioned like law. The revelations came as “commandments,” the name he gave to all early revelations. They required obedience.” (p. 442) But no further analysis is devoted to how and when these revelations occur and how did Joseph Smith come to verbalize them. Brodie mentions the fact that Joseph Smith deprived the others “of the privileges he himself enjoyed (i.e. revelations) was the first step toward authoritarianism in his church.” (p. 92) She quotes Joseph Smith’s later description of the spirit of revelation as “pure intelligence” flowing into him. “It may give you sudden strokes of ideas, so that by noticing it, you may find it fulfilled the same day or soon.” … what he was describing was imply his own alert, intuitive understanding and creative spirit” (p, 57). About a revelation that had gone awry, Joseph Smith explained: “Some revelations are of God; some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil. … When a man enquires of the Lord concerning a matter, if he is deceived by his own carnal desires, and is in error, he will receive an answer according to his erring heart, but it will not be a revelation from the Lord.” (p. 81) But there is no connection mentioned in either biography about the relationship between revelations, dreams, visions, and thoughts.

Transformations and changes in the theological directions. Bushman outlines the problems of contradictory revelations: “Contradictions in the revelations, and therefore keeping the commandments of God was difficult when God on the one hand commands “Thou shalt not kill” and on the other “Thou shalt utterly destroy.” What was a believer to do with conflicting injunctions? Joseph reached a terrifying answer: “that which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is, right under another.” This unnerving principle was the foundation of the government of God”. (p. 442) Brodie notes that the road to godhood was vastly increased by Joseph Smith’s teaching that “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man.” (p. 300) Brodie adds: “It will be seen that the Mormon heaven was as changing, tumultuous, and infinitely varied as earth itself.” (p. 300) There were numerous additional thoughts and it is likely that Mormon beliefs would have changed even dramatically had not Joseph Smith been killed.

The question of language. The Book of Mormon was Joseph Smith’s translation from golden slates (taken up to heaven, so they are not available for scrutiny) engraved with what he called hieroglyphs of “reformed” Egyptian. This translation was achieved miraculously. Bushman does not dwell on the fact that Joseph Smith did not know Egyptian (in fact, it was only beginning to be deciphered by Champollion at that time). Brodie explains the translations as evidence of Joseph Smith’s imaginative creativity and conscious artifice. However, Bushman raises the question “Does God speak?” and this connects to the revelation problems taken up above, especially since Joseph Smith believed that words are a hindrance while experiencing visions, and that he was living in a world of “prison” in “crooked broken scattered imperfect language”.

There are many other significant topics which these two biographies present for scrutiny, but I shall stop here. Who was then Joseph Smith and how did he achieve such phenomenal success in founding a theist religion? Bushman’s answer conforms strictly to this plain, confident man’s function as a prophet, in his divine revelations and abilities which his followers gladly accepted. Brodie’s view is much more nuanced and empathetic. She writes: “It should not be forgotten…that for Joseph’s vigorous and completely undisciplined imagination the line between truth and fiction was always blurred.” (p.84) He was “not a false but fallen prophet” (p. 370) After Joseph Smith’s untimely and cruel death, “…it was the legend of Joseph Smith, from which all evidences of deception, ambition, and financial and marital excesses were gradually obliterated, that became the great cohesive force within the church.” (p. 397) “Joseph had a ranging fancy, a revolutionary vigor, and a genius for improvisation, and what he could mold with these he made well. With them he created a book and a religion, but he could not create a truly spiritual content for that religion.” (p. 403) Thus, as it often happens in the religious sphere, if the individual is inclined to believe faithfully without worrying about the nitty-gritty worldly facts, to this individual Joseph Smith was divinely appointed to found a religion, and magically endowed with abilities to lead others into this religion. If, on the other hand, the individual is inclined to ask questions, and not to believe on faith, but look for secular explanations, Joseph Smith was an “outrageously confident” troubled man equipped with blasphemous audacity and megalomania, able to lead an uncritical audience. This is a contest between two views that has no winners or losers, and yet either view reaffirms the reader’s expectations, experiences, and intellectual propensities.

Carnegie’s deficiencies

The life of one of the robber barons, Andrew Carnegie (businessman, steel manufacturer, philanthropist, writer, father) can serve as a perfect warning example to those whose ambition is to become great capitalists (nowadays better defined as billionaire entrepreneurs). Although he was a man of action, a particular do-gooder, and towards the end of his life, a promoter of world peace, his achievements do have shortcomings gleaned from his Autobiography* and also from David Nasaw’s biography**.

The following are not book reviews; the analysis is based on what Carnegie himself and Nasaw wrote, but I tried to read between the lines and therefore the observations are all mine.

What are then Carnegie’s deficiencies? The three most apparent ones have to do with 1. His education 2. His relationship to labor 3. His wealth.

1. Carnegie and education

Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919) had enjoyed only a few years of formal primary education, due to the need to help the family financially right after his immigration to the US when he was 13. However, all his life, he read widely, wrote ceaselessly, did his best to associate with publishers, university presidents as well as professors, statesmen, and what he called “leading families”. He had an excellent memory, honed during the few years of elementary education in Dunfermline (Scotland), and he was proud of being able to recite the poetry of Burns and selections from Shakespeare whenever occasions allowed it. When, in 1882, Carnegie met Herbert Spencer, his “infatuation and obsession” (Nasaw p. 226)  with the English philosopher began in earnest. Spencer’s philosophy reaffirmed Carnegie’s lack of belief in theology, and was instrumental in creating a solid justification for his money-making efforts. Having Spencer as his beacon, Carnegie’s view was shut to other philosophical possibilities, and this is his first deficiency. Clearly, it stems from the lack of formal and coherent education, which would have allowed him to see the negative side of Spencer’s views and look for alternate explanations for the meaning of life.

2. Carnegie and labor

Both meanings of labor enter the discussion here: Carnegie’s view of his employees or workers and his view of work in general. It is obvious from the manner in which the strike at his Homestead steel mill was handled that he was not only far removed from the nitty-gritty of workers’ woes, but he also was unwilling to face the striking men. As he was happy to repeat, he was away in Scotland when the strike happened (which resulted in deaths); what he never mentioned is that he would have had time enough to come and see for himself, since the strike kept going for some months. Needless to say, individual workers were not important to his overall view of the industrial process. He may have extolled their work habits, but there was callousness in the way he looked at labor “in the abstract, just like another commodity” (Nasaw p. 178). And this is the second of Carnegie’s deficiencies: along with Spencer’s view of inevitable progress made on the backs of the toiling masses, his callous stance does not allow the humanization of workers. Furthermore, he did not deem individual workers good enough to trust with financial donations, which, according to him, they would only squander in food and frivolities.  In The Gospel of Wealth, he openly stated that the wealth of men like him must be shared with the community, not with individuals.

                It is generally assumed that Carnegie’s financial success was the result of his ruthless operations in dealing with competitors, establishing monopolies, underselling other industrialists. His own explanation for his success, however, is twofold: on the one hand, he claims that he achieved wealth thanks to the fact that he hired men who were specialists and therefore who handled the business much better than he would have.  On the other hand, as he himself wrote, “The community created the millionaire’s wealth” (Nasaw p. 167), possibly with luck intervening in the process for being at the right place (Pittsburgh), at the right time (late 1800s), when railroads were expanding Westward (Nasaw p. 168). But the most fascinating point is yet another: Carnegie never toiled for his money. In fact, “What was most remarkable about Carnegie’s newfound success as a capitalist was how little it required of him. At each stage of his business career from bobbin boy to steelmaker, he had worked less and earned more. Since moving to New York City, in his middle thirties, and settling into a state of semiretirement, his income had increased exponentially. Carnegie had no delusions at all about the virtues of hard work. He avoided the topic of “diligence” in his lectures, speeches, and articles on “how to succeed in business”. On the contrary, he took great pride in his own rather idiosyncratic work habits.” (Nasaw p. 184). This is yet another part of the second deficiency, his sheer ease of doing “work”, and the utter fortune in not having to actually toil for his money.

                It must be said that he thoroughly enjoyed his wealth through leisurely activities, such as travelling often and especially to Scotland; giving presents to his friends and business associates, as well as to people from whom he required something in return.

3. Carnegie and wealth

The third deficiency in Carnegie’s life points to the fact that he must have realized, tragically, close to the end of his life, that money (however plentiful), really cannot buy world peace, at least not in the way he went about it. This tycoon firmly believed that “A sunny disposition is worth more than fortune” (Autobiography, p. 8), and his favorite saying was “It will get better tomorrow”. Despite his unbounded optimism, Carnegie died unhappy, closed in his mutism, disillusioned from the way the world hurled itself into war (1914), without  politicians enthusiastically following his suggestions for peace.

                In conclusion, Carnegie’s life offers a rich mine of ideas about the foundations of greedy and contentious capitalism which should be a warning example to those who may wish to become capitalists themselves. His shortcomings stemmed from his lack of formal and coherent education, his unwillingness to see the other side of Spencer’s philosophy, and his unchecked optimism with which he used money to achieve his goals. The fact that there are more than a thousand libraries and hundreds of institutes of research which carry his name means that part of his dream is still alive, but it is doubtful whether today, with internet, web 2.0, and all the technological advancements, libraries would be an appropriate route for a millionaire to spend his money for and in the community.  

___

*Andrew Carnegie, The Autobiography of Andrew Carnegie and The Gospel of Wealth. With a New introduction by Gordon Hunter. Signet, 2006.

** David Nasaw, Andrew Carnegie. Penguin, 2006.

A new, different human

That the Buddha has become  part and parcel of some indefinite general cultural awareness is obvious from the fact that statues supposedly representing him are now found in home decor stores. Aside from the fact that he would probably be surprised, shocked and annoyed by this development, what is it about him that draws us to him? Is it his iconoclasticism? Is it his human search for a new humanity? Is it his steadfast belief in the power and possibility of human mind and body to overcome suffering? And, therefore, asking about him as a person is natural: What was he like? What exactly happened to him? How did he live? How did he achieve his goal? These and other questions are answered in Karen Armstrong’s Buddha (Penguin Books, 2004). The author makes it clear that the Buddha’s biography can only be partial and full of conjectures, since not only more than 2 and a half millennia intervene between him and us, but also facts about his life are found in writing which appeared more than hundred years after his death (for ex., the Pāli scriptures). This book is therefore threading a difficult and complex ground of centuries of added facts, fantasies, myths about who must have been a charismatic sage. So completing his life story is no mean feat.

The book’s content, after the Introduction,  is divided into sections, more or less following the generally accepted divisions of the Buddha’s philosophical development: Renunciation, Quest, Enlightenment, Dhamma*, Mission, Parinibbāna. The Introduction explains the various sources for the biographical details used, and gives an overview of the complexities of teasing out those which are more plausible than others.  She states that “The Buddha always insisted that his teaching was based entirely on his own experience. He had not studied other people’s views or developed an abstract theory” (xx).  This is an unfortunate statement, since it is contradicted by his constant pre-enlightenment search for teachers and ideas about suffering, explained later in the book (p. 35 and following). The Buddha’s appeal to “our own Western culture” is explained by his “scrupulous empiricism” and also because “He  confined his researches to his own human nature and always insisted that his experiences – even the supreme Truth of Nibbāṇa – were entirely natural to humanity” (xxvi).

In the chapter on Renunciation, Armstrong follows Gotama**’s  route taken commonly by sages, ascetics, forest-monks of his era: in order to cut loose from one’s attachment to people and things which causes pain and suffering, one must abandon the familial lifestyle and search for a way out of suffering outside of the confines of the usual social, economic, political circles. Throughout the book, the author makes connections to “our” (read: modern “Western”) beliefs and attitudes. For example, in this chapter, she writes:

Everything in the mundane world had, it was thought, its  more powerful, positive replica in the divine realm. All that we experienced here below was modeled on an archetype in the celestial sphere; the world of the gods was the original pattern of which human realities were only a pale shadow. This perception informed the mythology, ritual and social organizations of most of the cultures of antiquity and continues to influence more traditional societies in our own day. It is a perspective that is difficult for us to appreciate in the modern world, because it cannot be proved empirically and lacks the rational underpinning which we regard as essential to truth. But the myth does express our inchoate sense  that life is incomplete and that this cannot be all there is: there must  be something better, fuller and more satisfying elsewhere. (p. 5)

At this stage of his life, Gotama is very much conscious of the teachings of his day: reincarnation happens, the soul comes back and is given life according to the actions of the previous host/body/person. What bothers him, and many others, is the ineluctability of the soul returning to yet another life of suffering. According to the author, this resulted in a malaise, common to three parts of the world quasi contemporaneously:

An increasing number[of people] had come to feel that the spiritual practices of their ancestors no longer worked for them, and an impressive array of prophetic and philosophical geniuses made supreme efforts to find a solution. Some historians call this period (which extended from about 800 to 200 B.C.E.) the “Axial Age” because it proved pivotal to humanity. The ethos forged during this era has continues to nourish men and women to the present day. Gotama would become one of the most important and most typical of the luminaries of the Axial Age, alongside the great Hebrew prophets of the eight, seventh and sixth centuries;  Confucius and Lao Tzu, who reformed the religious traditions of China in the sixth and fifth centuries; the sixth century Iranian sage Zoroaster; and Socrates and Plato (c. 427-327).  (p. 10-11)

The chapter entitled Quest deals with Gotama’s delving into various explanations offered by tradition and different teachers as to the cause of suffering: is it ignorance? (Upanisads: lack of understanding of the true Self); is it desire?  (monks of the east Gangetic plains: cravings that make us say “I want”, i.e. egotism). Furthermore, the means to achieve understanding and transcendence included various paths:  meditation (mental exercises), yoga (physical exercises), extreme punitive regimes, self-indulgence.

Gotama’s Enlightenment moment was the result not of his mastering the existing techniques, but of his resolve to “work with human nature not fight against it – amplifying states of  mind that were conducive to enlightenment and turning his back on anything that would stunt his potential. He was developing what he called a “Middle Way” (p. 71). Legend has it that “after the night of meditation, he gained insight about the Four Noble Truths: Noble truth of suffering (dukkha) that informs the whole of human life, Cause of this suffering that was desire (tanhā), Nibbāṇa exists as a way out of this predicament. He discovered the path that leads from suffering and pain to its cessation in the state of Nibbāṇa” (p. 81). And he came up with the Noble Eightfold Path as a way to enlightenment. The Path includes Morality (right speech, action,  livelihood), Meditation (yoga, mindfulness, concentration), and Wisdom (right understanding and resolve). Interestingly, “He had not made this up; it was not a new creation or an invention of his own. He insisted that he had simply discovered  ‘a path of great antiquity, an ancient trail, traveled by human beings in a far-off, distant era’. …this ancient knowledge had faded over the years and had been entirely forgotten” (p. 82).

The chapter on Dhamma underscores specific points of the Buddha’s teaching, specifically, the fact that one should not accept a doctrine on somebody else’s authority  because this could not lead to enlightenment:  it was an abdication of personal responsibility (p. 101). “Letting go” of useless desires, realizing that change is permanent, bring the disciples closer to Nibbāṇa. Furthermore, and this is truly revolutionary (although not original, see the Materialist Ajita’s teachings), “The Buddha always denied the existence of any absolute principle or Supreme Being, since this could be another thing to cling to, another fetter and impediment to enlightenment.” (p. 115) After his enlightenment, the Buddha was also called Tathāgata = one who has gone (after the enlightenment).  “The scriptures say that the Buddha attained Nibbāṇa in late April or early May, but do not reveal the year in which this important event took place. The conventional date 528 BCE, some modern scholarship puts it in 450 BCE” (p. 123).

What was the upshot of the Buddha’s enlightenment? Chapter 5, Mission, describes the blossoming of his followers, despite his vehement repetition that people should follow their own minds. His  sermons reached everyone, and the throngs were substantial. The number of his disciples grew steadily, although slowly at first. Later, donations from kings made  places of quiet seclusion for the monks who followed him (sangha=monastic assembly), but close enough for those townsfolk who needed to come and consult with them. The various understandings of his preaching sharpened into two views, led by two of the most gifted disciples: Sāriputta and Moggallāna. Their understanding

became the inspiration for the two main schools of Buddhism that developed some 200 to 300 years after the Buddha’s death. The more austere and monastically inclined Theravāda regard Sāriputa as a second founder. He was of an analytical cast of  mind and could express the Dhamma in a way that was easy to memorize. But his piety was too dry for the more populist Mahāyāna school, whose version of Buddhism is more democratic and emphasizes the importance of compassion. (p. 130)

This stage of the Buddha’s life also brings into full focus the contradictions of some of his views, for ex.,

1. although compassionate, the Buddha showed loving kindness to everyone but not to women (and once admitted, their provisions were stricter than for men);
2. although believing in everyone’s ability to achieve enlightenment, only the disciples were able to learn skillful techniques of meditation (the Noble Truths were not for the laymen);
3. although he aimed at forging a new way of being human and reform human consciousness, he avoided (consciously?) a close working relationship with kings and rulers, preferring to concentrate not on political and social reform, but on individual enlightenment. Through this, a better society was possible, as life in his sangha demonstrated that contentment without egotism is possible and is in fact pleasurable.

The final chapter on Parinibbāna deals with death and its aftermath. Interestingly enough, the Buddha was aware that not all people believed in reincarnation; his sermons were specifically tailored to his audience. Thus, in the sermon to the Kālāmans, he suggested “they should avoid greed, hatred and delusion, but also cultivate benevolence, kindness and generosity, try to acquire a sound understanding of life, leading to more happiness.  … The Buddha did not impose the doctrine of reincarnation upon the Kalamans, who may not have been familiar with it. If there was another life to come, then this good kamma might get them reborn as gods in heaven next time, but if there was no other world, then this considerate and genial lifestyle might encourage others to behave in like manner towards themselves” (p. 146).***

In the Introduction, Armstrong makes it clear that “The Buddha was trying to find a new way of being human” (xxv). This new way is still new, in a sense that modern life – secular or religious – still clings (!) to the wrong things. This Buddha’s biographer is to be commended for her delicate treatment of the sage’s life. She succeeds in honoring the Buddha’s desire not to look at him, but at his dharma (teaching). Moreover, she puts his life in the context of his era, and makes connections to current cultural practices and beliefs, thus enriching the possibilities of thinking differently about life. All in all, though, the Buddha remains not of this world.

________________________

*The author prefers using Pāli rather than Sanskrit terminology; i.e. dharma.

**Gotama is the Pāli equivalent of the Sanskrit Gautama Buddha’s name.

***This is why it is not surprising that aspects of Buddhist thought can flourish without the necessity of belief in transcendence. See, for ex., Rick Heller, Secular Meditation. A Guide from the Humanist community at Harvard. 32 Practices for Cultivating Inner Peace, Compassion, and Joy. (New World Library, 2015).