A Jewish Leader Visits the
Russian Writer
Shimon Peres
Shimon
Peres (left) and Alexander Solzhenitsyn
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Editorial Note:
The following
article was first published in
September 9, 2008,
by the daily newspaper “Haaretz”,
in Israel.[1] Original title: “Solzhenitsyn Warned
Me: Only Self-Restraint Will Save Humanity”.
The writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008)
is one of the
greatest Russian thinkers and novelists
since the 1917
Revolution. Former President of Israel
Shimon Peres (1923-2016) wrote some 11
books, and
was one of the main
political leaders and humanistic
thinkers in the
Jewish state since 1948. Solzhenitsyn won
the Nobel Prize in
literature, and Peres received the Nobel
Prize for his
efforts to bring peace to the Middle East.
The present text
examines the practical need for
self-restraint in nations
and individuals, so that a lasting
peace, internal
and external, may be built. Self-restraint is
another name
for voluntary simplicity, detachment, or
renunciation to
illusions. What Peres leaves rather implicit
is that self-restraint
is an outer form of self-discipline by
which in fact
both individuals and countries and communities
uncover their unlimited
potentialities for good and unreserved
access to truth,
understanding and happiness. The awakening of
a higher
consciousness allows people to see the
dialectics by
which outer
stoicism leads to true and unlimited happiness within.
(Carlos Cardoso
Aveline)
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
After visiting the Tolstoy
Museum while serving as Foreign Minister, I requested a visit with Alexander
Solzhenitsyn. The Nobel Prize-winning Russian author consented, asking us to come
without photographers or bodyguards and not to discuss current affairs. He no
longer gave interviews then, devoting all his time to writing. “Not much time
is left for me and I want to complete my work,” he later told me.
Solzhenitsyn was living in the
heart of a dense forest, an hour’s drive from Moscow, in an isolated,
simply-furnished large house. We were received by his second wife, who spoke
fluent English. She was pleased to finally leave their exile in Vermont, the
writer told us afterward.
Solzhenitsyn himself was
simply dressed: khaki pants and a pullover of a similar color. While he
displayed uncompromising seriousness, his face revealed a softness as he
remained true to good Russian hospitality.
He hastened to tell me I was
mistaken when I said I was pleased to note that he looked well. His health
continued to be poor, he no longer traveled, and he did not waste his time -
even at home. There he simply wrote and wrote.
The writer removed a note from
his pocket and said that, “According to what was agreed, our conversation will
be conducted around three subjects.” Although, for my part, I do not remember
that there ever was such an agreement, it is possible that during my previous
visit to Moscow, I may have mentioned to his wife that these are the topics
which I would like to broach, but then Solzhenitsyn fell ill and that meeting
was canceled.
The subjects were:
Civilization and culture, peace and poverty, and culture and religion.
He immediately opened with the
first, arguing that the two concepts existed in direct competition with each
other. The more civilization prospers, the more culture withdraws. Over the
last century, culture had greatly dwindled in comparison with previous
centuries. Furthermore, he said, modern civilization has harmed culture and
values and is not more important than the cultural experience.
Solzhenitsyn related these
sentiments in Harvard 15 years ago, then calling on his students not to
withdraw into themselves, but to show openness and understanding toward their
fellow man. He explained that one’s attitude toward the other is the basis of
culture.
As an example, he told them of
a small tribe in Siberia which, perhaps from the point of view of civilization,
may have been considered primitive, but from the point of view of culture was
more advanced than most modern societies. 15 years ago, these notions may have
been astounding. But today, one understands that we are all indebted to
cultural pluralism.
At our meeting, I remarked
that an Israeli poet had once wrote: “To love is to love the odor of one’s
fellow being.” Although another poet had declared that, “Fellow man is hell.” I
added that civilization is a way of life that nourishes the body whereas
culture is the taste of life, which nourishes the soul. When the taste of life
is absent, it has no significance.
Solzhenitsyn referred to this
phenomenon, which developed in the second half of the 20th century, as “the
destruction of humanism.” Humanism is based on a system of values, such as
helping the poor and oppressed, and an awareness of the liberty of man.
Cruelties committed in the first half of the 20th century reached previously
unknown levels. These atrocities were given frightening expression in the
brutal world wars.
The former Soviet dissident
added that after such an experience, humanism should have raised its arms and
capitulated, or looked for another solution in order to save itself. In its
place, however, the concept of globalization developed, which created the
impression that every person can feel as if he belongs to “a big world of
egoism.” In order to avoid additional wars, Solzhenitsyn said, a world
government should have been established, believing the United Nations
insufficient due to its failure to answer true problems.
According to Solzhenitsyn,
mankind’s Achilles heel has been its inability to restrain itself. The pursuit
of wealth occurred at the expense of other more important things, and to the
detriment of one’s fellow man.
A fifth of the world’s
population, “the golden billion,” continues to prosper, he stated, while the
remaining four-fifths are condemned to backwardness and poverty. The prosperity
of that golden billion was increasing and progressing at the expense of the
other four fifths.
He pondered: Will the
situation balance itself and the gaps narrow, or the opposite transpire - will
things reach a point of confrontation, which would likely cause the destruction
of the entire world?
Solzhenitsyn claimed that the
soul of man sees freedom as a means and not as a goal. It, however, does not
know how to bear this characteristic appropriately. Only self-restraint can
pave the way for saving the world from sure destruction, he affirmed.
Vaclav Havel, the former
president of Czechoslovakia, once asked the writer to come to a conference
devoted to human rights. He rejected all similar invitations, including this
one, proposing instead that everyone engaged with this issue organize
conferences discussing “the duties of man” rather than man’s rights. He said the
core of the problem was man’s own nature, which man must control.
I told him that one of the
things that had caught my eye when I read his “Gulag Archipelago” was the deep
experience the book’s hero had when he left prison and saw a mirror for the
first time after so many years. I said that actually, we all live without a
mirror that reflects our experiences and behavior.
Regarding human rights, I
added, there is one right without which there is no life and that is the right
of man to remain alive, and that right is sometimes taken from us. History,
apart from cultural history, is written in red ink. It is the history of the
taking of lives of many, often without justification. It is a history whose
main plot is wars and most of its heroes are warriors.
Whereas earlier life often
depended on strength for survival, what has now basically changed is that
science and technology have taken the central place in the existence of man.
Science, happily, does not demand blood, as the land once demanded, and does
not tolerate lies, as war permits. Now, whoever knows how to make efficient use
of one’s time has a definite advantage.
The ability to develop
communication does not depend on race, culture, or place; it is possible to see
what happened to a small and backward country like Mexico, which in connecting
with the new era, has undergone true change over a short period - from a failed
regime to a democracy, from chronic poverty to impressive progress. The
conflict today is between the connected and the disconnected. We are connected,
not via the land or the sea, but via the air that we breathe, and this has no
history or territory and belongs to no race.
This exampled sparked
Solzhenitsyn’s interest, and he asked if this may be true for the whole of
Europe and not only for the European Union. I replied that what happened to
part of Europe can happen to the whole of Europe. I added that if we refer to
the height of cruelty that occurred during the first half of the 20th century,
it could be said that if someone had stood up in 1944 and stated that within
five years, a different Europe would be established, his listeners would have
broken out in laughter. But this is what happened. French statesman Jean Monet
contributed to the future of Europe more than Napoleon, who left tombs of glory.
Solzhenitsyn maintained that
despite the aforementioned benefits of modernity, modern society of consumers
and goods is a domain where appetites grow, the numbers of disappointed people
grow, while big money is being centralized in the hands of few.
I expressed my reservations
and replied that new markets are beginning to turn to the cultured consumers.
Perhaps fifty percent of modern consumption is of experiences and ideas:
tourism, music, films, books, entertainment, design, sport, aesthetics, lengthening
life expectancy and the uplifting of tastes. I told him that the United States,
the country leading this modernization, produces more ideas than goods.
Solzhenitsyn remained
skeptical. He claimed that we are becoming insane from striving to attain new
things.
“Man is afraid of boredom,” I
told him. Solzhenitsyn stopped me and said that he is never bored. I replied by
saying he is not a good example, telling him that a good Frenchman will
sacrifice his life in order not to fall victim to boredom.
It seems to me the “television
era” has replaced the “era of the book”. The book helped us use our time, to
read a lot - and slowly - and to delve deeply. The U.S. has become more and
more the continent of the television, while Russia remains the continent of the
book.
I mentioned that what is
special in Indian culture is that the highest level of freedom is reached when
a man frees himself from his ego. This is the only way that allows Indian
society to exist in its extremely pluralistic form - economically liberal and
socially stratified.
He then began to speak of
culture and religion. Perhaps this isn’t fashionable, he said, but religion
stands above culture. There is no culture without belief. No faith without
values. We need God, as we need human conscience.
I replied that I believe in
God, but not necessarily in priesthood. I'm happy to see that religions too,
are undergoing liberalization nowadays. It is impossible to compare the
Catholicism of the Inquisition period to present-day Catholicism. But religion
requires culture. Communists used to say that religion is the opium of the
masses. Today, we know that if there is no faith, opium indeed takes its place.
We both agreed that without a
God, we would have been very poor people. The believer is wealthier than a
wealthy man who has no faith.
I told him about my experience
while visiting Tolstoy’s house and especially the Jewish element in the
experience. Tolstoy learnt Hebrew, which has kept the Jewish nation together
throughout centuries.
We did not have much time
left. His health was not good.
He mentioned that peace must
be reached between Israelis and Palestinians. I told him that for us, peace is
not simply a strategic or political issue, but a moral virtue. The Jewish
people did not leave slavery to create yet another kind of slavery in the land
of Israel. We were not born to dominate another people, it is in contradiction
to everything which is dear to us.
The Sunday when all this
happened remains an unforgettable day for me. I recall thinking that after
Tolstoy had passed away, he continued to live on in our bodies’ every cell and
in the search for the beauty of nature and life. Solzhenitsyn, who also lives,
fills the cells of our life with sobriety and bids us to consider the nature of
man and why he should restrain himself.
I thought to myself then that
the way in which we should manage our relations with Russia is via culture,
more than in the way of diplomacy.
NOTE:
[1] In January 2017,
the present article was still available online at http://www.gariwo.net/file/Peres%20su%20Solzhenitsyn.pdf.
000
In September 2016, after
a careful analysis of the state of the esoteric movement worldwide, a group of students
decided to form the Independent Lodge of
Theosophists, whose priorities include the building of a better future in
the different dimensions of life.
000
