________________
98
A LOVER OF LIGHT AMONG LUMINARIES : Dilip Kumar Roy from cobwebs and which is fully enlightened in the rational sense of the term. There appeared to be no paradoxes about him. We need not repeat here what is stated earlier that there is no obvious contradiction between Russell's essential humanitarian impulses akin to a true religion and his criticism of institutional faith.
There is similarly no contradiction in Russell's advice to America to shun decadence of age and to become truly young in figurative sense of the term. Simplicity of the older mode of life was desirable and Russell said so. But ignorance and superstition of the same were pernicious and should be abandoned. Where is contradiction here ? Consumerism which is the outcome of the modern technology has become a threat to all the resources of the earth, and to its flora and fauna. It is bad. But scientific understanding of everything is absolutely necessary. What is contradictory about his advice to shun consumerism and follow science ? It seems that Dilip Roy does not like the language of clear sense and reason unless it flatters his cherished emotions and confirms his own linguistic usages.
Russell did not like the inventions of machines and the industrial civilization. But he knew that the machines had come to stay. You cannot afford to be technologically backward and barbaric when the whole world is taking rapid technological strides. Therefore, he advised every nation to adjust itself properly to the introduction of machinery. He would never agree with Mahatma Gandhi that one particular country or community in the comity of nations must march backward towards a primitive state of living. Russell would never attempt the impossible as Mahatma Gandhi did. One has to keep pace with the changing world.
Russell's criticism of Mahatma Gandhi on the issues of birth control and machines looks correct and acceptable. Roy, too, does not contradict him.
Russell admits that the mystics enjoy blissful transports. But his objection to mysticism is that it makes mystics unfit for normal secular affairs. It is quite true. But is normality the right standard to judge of the desirability of the inward visions? Then you may have to dismiss even devoted artists and sometimes scientists as useless, because they, too, are essentially devoted to unworldly aims. Their creations inventions are only incidental. You cannot say that most deeply felt revelations of scientific truths or artistic beauty are useless when they don't find outward expressions. Moreover, the mystics too express themselves in prose and poetry and that way, play their role incidentally in the shaping of society even like scientists and artists. They, too, are the creators of culture. Russell fails to understand this. He must understand that creators of culture have never been normal or extrovert persons. Some of them like Vincent Van Gogh had been positively mad and abnormal. Russell's standard for the evaluation of
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
