Aesthetic Atheists
#1
A collection of posts from the Nirmukta Book Club Facebook page between me and Arvind Iyer in response to:
http://nirmukta.com/2012/07/13/a-miracle...discovery/

Anuj Menon: The only reason i don't force rational thought on everyone is because of the sheer beauty of randomness wrought by irrational thought in art smile

Arvind Iyer: ‎^ That almost sounds like the playbook apologist in Question # 2 here! ;-)
http://nirmukta.com/2012/02/10/freethoug...-examined/

Anuj Menon: The key being, almost :P

Arvind Iyer:
Quote:‎.... the sheer beauty of randomness wrought by irrational thought in art

Art has not always been viewed as autotelic and exempt from any explanatory imperative, but has often been employed as a medium of exchange or even instruction [1]. Great practitioners of art such as Tagore[2] and Gibran[3] have however warned that to confine art to such purposiveness and planning would result in an anemic society. This attitude of such 'passionate reasoners' accords due place to Compassion along with Reason, unlike say the worldview of Ayn Rand stating that 'Reason is Man's only absolute'[4]. A political challenge of the freethought movement is to cultivate 'educated feeling' [5] that is expressed via an engaged, sensitive skepticism rather than a valuing of skepticism over every other human value.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oe6HUgrRlQ#t=10m29s
[2] http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes...32828.html
[3] http://leb.net/mira/works/prophet/prophet15.html (Freethinkers may skip the last three lines. :-) )
[4] http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=298
[5] http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesa...d-feeling/

Anuj Menon :
Quote:sensitive skepticism rather than a valuing of skepticism over every other human value

I appreciate that, but what i meant by forcing was asking people to see something away from their constrained viewpoint in one matter and more importantly trying to make them reconsider that what they're thinking or doing in life might be dangerous given their dependence on irrational thought or ideas.

It's....... how do i put it... this dependence on being right, that makes me say this. Refuting religion, is very VERY important... but when you see the other side in a debate has some good coming out in the terms of artistic output say (literary, visual and audio arts) i don't know how to tease apart religion as a dogmatic political doctrine from all that is wonderful about unconstrained expression.

The point is forcing. In most debates, i really won't take a reasoned stand and argue pragmatically for and against religion. I'll be anti-religion and dismissive of god. Unfortunately, i can't ignore the voluminous contribution of both to the arts. I can't divide the arts away from religious overtones... on one hand (those 3 verses that you're asking freethinkers to ignore :P) all passionately extol the virtues of 'god'. I know, you meant it in jest, but that 'ignore the last part' is what we often end up doing even when addressing these last bastions of irrationality.

I also understand that logic and rationale, do no a life make. There's more... but i have to end up softening my tone when i'm faced with this dilemma of trying to put the arts in some framework which doesn't damage my worldview with respect to skepticism.

Forgive me for giving a cliche example, but what worth do i with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Pe...Memory.jpg

That painting is random true... and doesn't need an explanation for its existence... but what about the artist who would come up with them? How far does skeptical thought extend to an artist, which isn't constrained by sophistry and solipsism?

I'm not saying artists are political entities with devious intent, who want to shove a dogmatic approach down on us... but just that irrational thought, an unscientific method of approaching the universe is also very valid in living a content life.

In a sense, a sense that is very distracting in a debate.... that there's no one answer. No one way.

More importantly would all us skeptics state it loudly, at least once in our lives? Given the import words have? Hasn't defending rationality become an almost political game for us?

Anuj Menon: ‎Arvind Sorry if this sounds like rambling!
Reply
#2
(15-Jul-2012, 05:47 PM)Anuj Menon Wrote: Anuj Menon :
Refuting religion, is very VERY important... but when you see the other side in a debate has some good coming out in the terms of artistic output say (literary, visual and audio arts) i don't know how to tease apart religion as a dogmatic political doctrine from all that is wonderful about unconstrained expression.

...... I can't divide the arts away from religious overtones... on one hand (those 3 verses that you're asking freethinkers to ignore :P) all passionately extol the virtues of 'god'. I know, you meant it in jest, but that 'ignore the last part' is what we often end up doing even when addressing these last bastions of irrationality.

It might perhaps help to consider these questions concretely in social settings we are all prone to encounter, so that we can come up suitable responses.

When a friend, let's say a liberal apatheist who doesn't lose sleep over shariah, plays a record of Abida Parveen or Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan when we meet up, do we simply sway to the music or pick apart theological influences in the lyrics and painstakingly convert this into a teachable moment?

What should our attitude towards the bonhomie surrounding Santa be? Here is my individual take on Santa in India, followed up here, from earlier.

In sum, a larger question for freethought advocates in an Indian setting is: If the Four Horsemen of New Atheism can be 'cultural Christians' who can fondly reminisce about the Latin Mass and call for reading 'the Bible as literature' and savouring Bach's piety-charged compositions, and the late Christopher Hitchens admits 'an admiration for some of the aesthetic achievements of religion' and acknowledges the compelling genuineness of some religious poetry....should every freethinker in a vibrant, syncretic India setting feel painted into a corner with accusations of accommodationism if they adopt an attitude that is short of iconoclasm while indulging in some of the aesthetic treats having origins in religion?

[+] 1 user Likes arvindiyer's post
Reply
#3
Quote:should every freethinker in a vibrant, syncretic India setting feel painted into a corner with accusations of accommodationism if they adopt an attitude that is short of iconoclasm while indulging in some of the aesthetic treats having origins in religion?

Iconoclasm? That actually struck a strange chord.... what we as atheists or aptheists (forced into debate Biggrin ) often attempt is deconstruction or refutation of religious practices. Imagery, poetry, and all other artistic outputs are mocked or parodied, but not coldly shot down.

The great flood underlying the story of Noah's ark is used as an example to show that the God described is an idiot with a hyper-complex ego and prone to destroy people he doesn't find nice. Yet imagery depicting the same will not arouse passionate cries for its removal, or result in someone defacing the painting. Yet talking about destruction of religious symbols... it brings to mind the Taliban bombing the huge statues of the Buddha at Bamiyan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_...March_2001

We as atheists, appreciate art stemming from religious motifs or utilizing religious imagery. In fact, i think we do see 'art for art's sake' , even though that can often be infuriating and pointless.

My question now is can we even see art as a place from where religion originates? Art has a healthy spot for the growth and culturing of human expression, for nurturing all that it entails including irrationality. No definitions are sought, and forcing an interpretation is often met with hostility and an automatic loss of appeal in appreciative communities.

What should we as atheist/irreligious be focused on? Irrational thought? Or the Politics of Religion? Where do we aim our arrows? If it is aiming at rational discourse in society will we end up targeting the arts in a harmful way? If it is aiming at politics of religion, wouldn't it be a futile and hypocritical exercise seeing as atheism itself has to be political to step into the arena of power?

For the life of me, i would hate it if someone pointed out to me that my frequent usage of 'OMG', or 'OMFG' somehow is inappropriate given that i don't have any sympathy for the concept of god and is by proxy, upholding religion in daily life. Not that someone has done that.. but i wonder would that be a bad argument? Should we take over language and talk about how invoking the use of the term god in a common context is harmful or detrimental to society? Is it even detrimental?

Is this making any sense?
[+] 1 user Likes Anuj Menon's post
Reply
#4
(16-Jul-2012, 01:52 AM)Anuj Menon Wrote: .... Yet talking about destruction of religious symbols... it brings to mind the Taliban bombing the huge statues of the Buddha at Bamiyan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_...March_2001

....
What should we as atheist/irreligious be focused on? Irrational thought? Or the Politics of Religion? Where do we aim our arrows? If it is aiming at rational discourse in society will we end up targeting the arts in a harmful way? If it is aiming at politics of religion, wouldn't it be a futile and hypocritical exercise seeing as atheism itself has to be political to step into the arena of power?

....Is this making any sense?

It does make sense to create the space for a 'fine arts supplement' of sorts in the freethinking discourse in which the headlines are dominated by themes of science and political secularism.

Speaking of the Bamiyan Buddhas, I remember an old status update of mine which went something like, 'The history of faith is littered with the debris left by iconoclasts of idolatry who ended up as idolators of iconoclasm, and in the name of being defenders of the Creator's glory became destroyers of creation'. In the latter half of this post entitled 'How Religions Flunk the Test of Power', an alternative history of Islam is imagined where idolatry is outgrown without the aggression of iconoclasm. The idea of redesign without defacement was explored in a refreshingly new way in this recent forum exchange about an Om tattoo.

Perhaps PZ Myer's list of four kinds of thoughtful atheists must be augmented with a category for 'Aesthetic Atheists'. These are atheists who recoil from religious censorship of human creativity, bemoan the failures of the imagination that are enforced by narratives considered canonical and detest any blinkering of creative vision. These are atheists who recoil from excesses like the 'destruction of the Four Olds' during the Grand Proletarian Cultural Revolution, with the same sort of aesthetic distaste they reserve for religious censorship. Like the 'Philosophical Atheists' described by PZ Myers can get on the nerves of fellow scientific or political atheists by insisting on 'hearing out religion's claims and examining them on their own merits', the 'aesthetic atheists' too insist on a careful excavation and examination of the material bequeathed by religion, some of which to them maybe worthy pieces in a collage. Aesthetic atheists can hear scientific atheists speak their language in conversations about the 'grandeur in this view of life' and 'the poetry of reality', and do join forces with political atheists to defend a civil liberty that both deeply care about: artistic freedom, which is under threat even in secular democracies.

'Political atheists' of the sort that engage in contemporary freethought advocacy are not as much intent on 'making a step into the arena of power' as they are intent on securing minority rights (guaranteed by the Constitution in secular democracies), since atheists in most countries are in a minority. In a sense, they are builders of both bridges (in growing coalitions) and walls (of separation between the Church and State) rather than simply guarding a turf. Even without partisan mobilization, let alone an electoral agenda, every freethought advocate can engage in a campaign for secular humanism.

Our narrative of the shared endeavour of freethought advocacy seems to be confined to war-like cliches of an army with some archers firing barbed arrows or ridicule, and others raising either the 'bludgeon of invective' or the 'rapier of sarcasm'. We have already seen that apart from these 'attackers' there are also 'defenders' who build walls and 'negotiators' who build bridges. Perhaps instead of treat all the ground covered so far as trenches to be dug in, some of the swords can be beaten into ploughshares and the hard-won ground can be tilled to cultivate some wholesome food for thought. Besides the 'swat teams' and 'rational response squads' of 'militant atheists', a space for a 'freethought studio' of 'aesthetic atheists' needs to be made and celebrated.

The raw material for the 'freethought studio' is our collective cognitive surplus and the work ethic will be collaborative and open-source. What shape such a freethought studio might take and what is asked of it from an eager audience, are topics touched upon in this thread.

Note to mods: Rather than having these posts under the thread 'Hopeless Atheists', how about splitting the thread from post#11 onwards into a new thread entitled 'Atheist Art-lovers' or 'Aesthetic Atheists' under this subforum in Freethought Arts?
[+] 2 users Like arvindiyer's post
Reply
#5
Nice links smile

While i won't be as naive as to forget that we need in/out dynamics to rally together and function in a deterministic way... i find not noticing this among atheists to be a bit distracting... how difficult is it to spot that you're in a mob?

I think, one of the reasons, personally, atheism appealed to me was the humour. It stops anything from becoming sacred, even life or death itself. Self effacing humour is the best, though shock and horror works well!

Talking about an iconoclasm without bloodshed, humor is the way. I think atheism is the only prospective activist movement which capitalizes on making jokes to reach out to a larger public smile

I actually don't think i've noticed this in any other activist movement... be it feminism, marxism, LGBT rights (it's witty, but not funny) and some more. Could be my biased perspective, but atheism seems more intent on being funny, than many of its predecessors.

[+] 1 user Likes Anuj Menon's post
Reply
#6
(16-Jul-2012, 09:48 PM)Anuj Menon Wrote: I think atheism is the only prospective activist movement which capitalizes on making jokes to reach out to a larger public

I actually don't think i've noticed this in any other activist movement... be it feminism, marxism, LGBT rights (it's witty, but not funny) and some more.

Speaking of what would have been laughable but can at best lend itself to black humour, we can start with Voltaire who said, 'Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.' The differing attitudes towards humour amid the intelligentsia drawn largely from the bourgeoisie and amid revolutionaries claiming a more proletarian mandate, can be seen as early as the time of Voltaire and Rosseau. Voltaire, the Enlightenment cheerleader chose to laugh at the absurdities of his time with such literary creations as Candide (talkbook here) and Rousseau, the 'proto-Leninist' to whose comrade Diderot is attributed the grim quote, "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest”, did not rule out violence to fight atrocities. A safe distance and a setting of relative privilege seem necessary to afford the luxury of humour. Today, it is harder to expect levity or lightheartedness about the absurdity of religious claims from say, an Ayaan Hirsi Ali who has been at the receiving end of religious atrocities, than from from say a Sam Harris whose style though deadpan is laced with some wry humour.

If brevity is the soul of wit, one-liners are an effective tool in the trade which have been employed by many 20th century activist movements. Perhaps the best-known feminist one-liner, 'A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle' is attributed to some campus graffiti art, and today, some New Atheist quips like 'Blasphemy is a victimless crime' lend themselves quite readily to bumper-stickers. Professional humorists like George Carlin, Ricky Gervais and Bill Maher are often quoted approvingly in the larger atheist circles, though understandably not as approvingly in secular humanist circles, in large part due to the consciously adopted policy of eschewing gendered slurs even in jest.

Besides traditional media like stand-up comedy, graffiti or bumper-stickers, new media like rage memes or wiki projects like the Lolcat Bible largely came into their own quite recently and since New Atheism is the most recent and perhaps the most web-based of all activist movements, it is surprising that it is this movement that has adopted these new media so enthusiastically. Tools for comic creation in the right hands, can be a potent tool for outreach. Comic retellings of epics have a certain cross-over appeal thanks to which fence-sitting theists can enjoy them along with atheists, like this take on the Ramayana. As for written word creations, there is a section devoted to 'Humour and Creative Arts' in the Nirmukta site, where there are attempts like this one to offer a satirical take on jingoism and stereotyping.

Reply
#7
(16-Jul-2012, 08:51 AM)arvindiyer Wrote: Perhaps PZ Myer's list of four kinds of thoughtful atheists must be augmented with a category for 'Aesthetic Atheists'. These are atheists who recoil from religious censorship of human creativity, bemoan the failures of the imagination that are enforced by narratives considered canonical and detest any blinkering of creative vision. These are atheists who recoil from excesses like the 'destruction of the Four Olds' during the Grand Proletarian Cultural Revolution, with the same sort of aesthetic distaste they reserve for religious censorship. Like the 'Philosophical Atheists' described by PZ Myers can get on the nerves of fellow scientific or political atheists by insisting on 'hearing out religion's claims and examining them on their own merits', the 'aesthetic atheists' too insist on a careful excavation and examination of the material bequeathed by religion, some of which to them maybe worthy pieces in a collage.

While we are on the topic of Aesthetic Atheism, I would like to ask a few questions. What is an Aesthetic Secular Humanist to make of the numerous personifications of beauty,justice,music,art etc. which may take the form of gods and goddesses? I am talking about all the imagery associated with Venus,Minerva, Apollo,Mars or even Krishna,Radha,Mohini etc. Our traditional art-forms rely heavily upon Krishna-esque heroes and heroines cast in the mold of Radha. Can a Krishna( or an Apollo), divested of his divine,super-human attributes, serve as an embodiment of youthful male beauty? But, firstly,I guess one must wait for the active worship of such gods to die out in order to reinterpret and reinvent them as being purely emblematic(as in the case of Greek/Roman gods).
Then there is 'Inspiration'- that upsurge and coincidence of creative ideas and the willingness to see them through to consummation. It is perhaps the one theme that totters most unsteadily on the brink of mysticism. MF Hussain's film Meenaxi included a song "Noor Un 'Ala"(lit. light upon light) to describe what the artist goes through when he is suddenly struck by inspiration. It works along the lines of a revelation. The lyrics also lend themselves to a very religious interpretation, as soon as the 'muse' is replaced by 'god'. My question: Inspiration can be a pretty slippery slope. Is one to let oneself go? Should there be limits?
A large chunk of our bequest consists of sculptures,paintings etc. that have prominently religious themes. For an Aesthetic Atheist, who is also interested in studying sculptures and other antiquities,how important is it to treat the theme of the pieces with seriousness and respect? Personally, I think of any myths that may be associated with an artwork as 'the fictional background'. It helps in understanding what the artist had in mind, but it must accompany you only so far in enjoying the aesthetic experience.


نوشیروان
Reply
#8
(17-Jul-2012, 02:59 AM)Naushirvan Wrote: .....It is perhaps the one theme that totters most unsteadily on the brink of mysticism. MF Hussain's film Meenaxi included a song "Noor Un 'Ala"(lit. light upon light) to describe what the artist goes through when he is suddenly struck by inspiration. It works along the lines of a revelation. The lyrics also lend themselves to a very religious interpretation, as soon as the 'muse' is replaced by 'god'. My question: Inspiration can be a pretty slippery slope. Is one to let oneself go? Should there be limits?
.....
Personally, I think of any myths that may be associated with an artwork as 'the fictional background'. It helps in understanding what the artist had in mind, but it must accompany you only so far in enjoying the aesthetic experience.

Husain's choice of the 'light upon light' verse for a reel-life creation, which might cause some unease among art-loving freethinkers for deifying the muse, seems to have rankled fundamentalist clerics all the more for its supposed blasphemy of profaning the divine! (Husain doesn't seem to have drawn ire from fundamentalists of just one hue!) Freethinking art-lovers will agree that while the artist's choice of materials or motifs may have indeed had a mixed history of what maybe called 'dual use', no motif used in art should result in an artist's life being endangered by threats from bigots, and to suggest that it is an artist's ill-advised used of symbols that occasioned the threats would be a form of victim-blaming. In such instances where in ordinary circumstances freethinkers might have simply been bemused by the artist's fancies, they now find themselves compelled to take a stance against forces of bigotry of all faiths arrayed against them.

While the fact that the 'light-upon-light' verse belongs to a book chapter with sexist views on chastity and replete with threats to skeptics, that itself doesn't seem grounds for freethinkers to 'outlaw' the use of the verse in an artistic setting, for freethinkers more than anyone else call for avoiding 'guilt by association'. Something that is of interest from an anthropological perspective is the near-universality of the light metaphor, be it of its guiding quality (John 8:12) or its inscrutable origins (Bhagavad Gita 15:6) or its self-illumining nature (Kena Upanishad 'eye of the eye' verse ). As an aside, Mani Shankar Aiyar once related an amusing incident from his St. Stephens' days when a fun-loving Urdu professor happened to see a plaque with John 8:12 inscribed, and translated, "Yesu ne kaha ki main Noor Jehan hoon", playing the words for 'light of the world' with a popular actress of the time, thus causing a delightful confusion between the sacred and the profane. It is the death of such humour that the fundamentalists wish to hasten, and freethinkers have a stake in not giving in to their enforced silence.

Besides the near-universal appeal of certain metaphors and the surprising similarities of distant creation myths and saviour myths, the question of whether there are aesthetic universals underlying the grand variety of art across cultures is a question that lends itself to scientific study, such as that popularized by V S Ramachandran. Neuroaesthetics is a field coming into its own, thanks to efforts like those of Semir Zeki and Irving Biederman in the context of 'perceptual pleasure'. However, just like an evolutionary biologist working in a molecular genetics laboratory can still enjoy an animal safari trip cherishing the diversity of life for its own sake, science-loving freethinkers can nevertheless indulge in a passion for art history and related tourism, which is the topic of discussion in this Nirmukta comment trail, occasioned incidentally by a question from an aesthetic atheist.

However, we can never lose sight of the sobering reality that the use of mythical motifs in our culture is seldom as benign as a Star Wars themed costume party by aficionados who lead sane, normal lives outside of this niche. As this excerpt on the socio-cultural impact of the televised Ramayana series from Ramachandra Guha's India After Gandhi shows, literalist interpretation and ensuing supremacist mobilization which such epic retellings lend themselves to, are harsh realities. The political challenge for aesthetic atheists in India is to fight the good fight against literalism and supremacism without making this a war on storytelling. Given some of the writings of freethinking parents on this subject, what they seem to have in mind is certainly not a war on Amar Chitra Katha! The freethinking position is to create a space where there is coercion neither to sanctify an epic as scripture nor to censor their characters our of the popular imagination. It is a worthwhile item in the freethought agenda to create a society where neither is Husain hounded out nor is the creative use of Hindu deities in a collage in an anti-smoking poster by a young student censored out of a competition.
[+] 1 user Likes arvindiyer's post
Reply
#9
(17-Jul-2012, 10:10 PM)arvindiyer Wrote: However, just like an evolutionary biologist working in a molecular genetics laboratory can still enjoy an animal safari trip cherishing the diversity of life for its own sake, science-loving freethinkers can nevertheless indulge in a passion for art history and related tourism, which is the topic of discussion in this Nirmukta comment trail, occasioned incidentally by a question from an aesthetic atheist.

Thank you for the links. As a matter of fact, it was the comments section of that page that got me thinking about the topic! This is indeed a very interesting theme that merits more exploration. I think using an Antonius, an Apollo or a Krishna as a personification of beauty lends an air of familiarity to the whole exercise- familiar figures having a greater resonance with the audience.


(17-Jul-2012, 10:10 PM)arvindiyer Wrote: Husain's choice of the 'light upon light' verse for a reel-life creation, which might cause some unease among art-loving freethinkers for deifying the muse, seems to have rankled fundamentalist clerics all the more for its supposed blasphemy of profaning the divine! (Husain doesn't seem to have drawn ire from fundamentalists of just one hue!)

all this despite the fact that Hussain took care not to lift the expression word-for-word from the Quran. He inserted an 'un (عن) in the Quranic noor 'ala noor( نور على نور) to make it sound more like common Arabic.There is no pleasing some people!

I think Hussain forayed a bit further into Quranic territory. References to barq-e-tajalli( lit. lightening of the manifestation, an allusion to Moses' experience on mount Sinai) in the lyrics of the same song place the appearance of a very human muse on an equal footing with the manifestation of the 'divine'(Islamic critics were largely silent on this score).Qawwalis and Sufiana songs are loaded with references to light(noor),fainting and being struck by lightening. What does neuroscience say about such fits of inspiration,especially the 'lights'?
نوشیروان
Reply
#10
(18-Jul-2012, 01:10 AM)Naushirvan Wrote: I think using an Antonius, an Apollo or a Krishna as a personification of beauty lends an air of familiarity to the whole exercise- familiar figures having a greater resonance with the audience.

As an aside, the characters of Rama and Krishna as imagined by bards and artists over the centuries seem to represent an Appolonian and Dionysian pair in the Indian cultural milieu. Rama seems to stands for monogamy, propriety and order according to an Appolonian ideal, and Krishna seems to stand for promiscuity, playfulness and creative abandon according to a Dionysian ideal.

(18-Jul-2012, 01:10 AM)Naushirvan Wrote: Qawwalis and Sufiana songs are loaded with references to light(noor),fainting and being struck by lightening. What does neuroscience say about such fits of inspiration,especially the 'lights'?

The blinding brilliance of revelation is again imagery that has been adopted across cultures, perhaps the most dramatic instance being the 'thousand suns' verse of the Bhagavad Gita. Prof. P Lal writes in the introduction to his transcreation of the text,
Quote:" The Gita is transformed from a reasoning dialogue in Cantos 1-9 to a poetical and mystical vision in Cantos 10-11. Unable to satisfy a warrior's stricken conscience by rational argument, Krishna opts for the unusual - he stuns Arjuna with a glorious "revelation" of psychedelic intensity. He succeeds; from Canto 12 Arjuna accepts whatever Krishna has to offer. Brain is overpowered by bhakti - but is it ethical to silence logic with magic?"

Contemporary neuroscience has studied instances of 'the brain overpowered by bhakti' and brains susceptible of hallucinating visions of psychedelic intensity replete with 'lights', most notably in the phenomenon of temporal lobe epilepsy. This is the condition speculated to underlie the unorthodox and psychedelic-seeming use of colour, and also the eventual insanity of Vincent van Gogh, as narrated in this section from the BBC documentary, The Brain Story.

Sufiana offerings lend themselves to multiple readings, with a plain reading alluding to an adventure or love song and more allegorical readings. William Dalrymple observes this in his documentary on Sufi music, in the works of Shah Abdul Latif and notes how a Sufi song lent itself to adaptation in a Coke commercial, not without controversy, by the late Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan. These layers of meaning of both romantic love and more mystical yearning, are also a feature of Kabir's works. Like many Sufis before him, Kabir seems to have had a radical streak and as an opponent of sectarianism, lends his voice to contemporary disavowals of communalism, like in the use of this Kabir poem in Anand Patwardhan's documentary 'Raam ke Naam'.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)