In Karma Yoga, Swami Vivekananda argues that creation would be impossible without inequality and the struggle for equality. He explains this in terms of physics:
“Suppose that all the particles of matter were held in equilibrium; would there be then any process of creation? We know from science that it is impossible. Disturb a sheet of water, and you will find every particle of the water trying to become calm again, one rushing towards another; and in the same way all the phenomena which we call the universe — all things therein — are struggling to get back to the state of perfect balance. Again a disturbance comes, and again we have combination and creation. Inequality is the very basis of creation. At the same time, the forces struggling to obtain equality are as much a necessity for creation as those which destroy it.“
This idea makes sense to me — the most beautiful art often comes from internal turmoil in the lives of artists; the most brilliant inventions come from the desire to improve the world; the most moving music is often composed by people who are struggling for something higher. If things were perfect, nobody would have a reason to give back to or improve the world.
What bothers me is this: after stating that this inequality is necessary for creation, Swami Vivekananda goes on to give an example of inequality in terms of the power of the human mind. He says:
“What makes the difference between man and man? It is largely the difference in the brain. Nowadays no one but a lunatic will say that we are all born with the same brain-power. We come into the world with unequal endowments; we come as greater men or as lesser men, and there is no getting away from that pre-natally determined condition.”
Call me a lunatic, but this idea doesn’t sit well with me. I’ve always been reluctant to say that some people are smarter than others — or rather, while I do acknowledge that some things come more easily to certain people, I strongly believe that this “difference in brain-power” is not something impossible to overcome. I fundamentally disagree that “we come as greater men or lesser men,” or that our ability to work and produce good results is a “pre-natally determined condition.” I strongly believe that with enough work, anyone can do anything. Perhaps this is too optimistic a view, and perhaps I am a lunatic; but somehow, I really don’t like the idea that brain power is one of the only factors in determining whether we are greater or lesser men.
What do you think?
Related posts:
2 Comments
I do feel that some people innately have stronger abilities in certain fields, but I agree with you that effort & motivation are far more important to success than the level of ability.
Of course, there’s a limit to this feel-good rhetoric. No matter how hard I try, there’s no way I’ll be able to grab rebounds better than Shaq, or run faster than PT Usha. I think most people can relate to, and accept, these physical limitations. Why, then, are we so eager to shoot down any suggestion that there may be similar mental limitations? Perhaps it is because mental abilities are more difficult to measure than physical ones.
In any case, it’s certainly plausible that we do come into this world “with unequal endowments”, as Vivekananda suggested. I’m not sure whether he meant to imply that these inequalities are the primary determinants of future success; I don’t think they are.
This New York Times article has some interesting insight on what creates a ‘genius’ -
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/opinion/01brooks.html
It says, ” The latest research suggests a more prosaic, democratic, even puritanical view of the world. The key factor separating geniuses from the merely accomplished is not a divine spark. It’s not I.Q., a generally bad predictor of success, even in realms like chess. Instead, it’s deliberate practice. Top performers spend more hours (many more hours) rigorously practicing their craft.”
This makes me feel like maybe I should spend more time honing my skills…
Post a Comment