• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

W. Somerset Maugham

nhunter

New Member
W. Somerset Maugham (1874-1965) is turning out to be one of my favorite authors. So far I have read four of his novels, Of Human Bondage (1915), The Magician (1908), The Razor's Edge (1944), and The Moon and Sixpence (1919).

Even though these books were written between sixty and a hundred years ago, they are still an easy end entertaining read. Maugham had an amazing gift of sketching living, breathing human beings in a few deceptively simple sentences. His books contain many pithy, if often cynical, observations of the human condition, most clearly recognizable in our own time.

I'm still wondering where the title of the novel The Moon and Sixpence came from. It appears to be a popular pub name in England, but it doesn't appear anywhere in the text. Perhaps it refers to a proverb or epigram I'm not familiar with.
 
The Razor's Edge (spoiler)

Written 9-3-2000

A few months ago, someone suggested that I read Somerset Maugham's novel "The Razor's Edge" because they felt that the novel's protagonist was in many ways very similar to me (Sitaram).

Recently, the movie version of "The Razor's Edge" aired on Public Television.

Of course, I made a special point to watch it, because I had become very curious as to what it might possibly be about, and whether I would see myself at all in the character.

The story is about a young man of modest means (from a small inheritance, $3000 per year, but in the early 1900's that was a lot.... even in the 1950's families could live on that sum). He became engaged to a young woman who associated with a wealthy upper class, but was not herself wealthy.

His main goal was to travel the world in search of wisdom and knowlege regarding the fundamental philosophical questions of life. His young fiancee wanted him to settle down at a practical career so that they might become prosperous and enjoy the finer material things of life.

He realizes that they are not suited to each other, so they break off their engagement. She marries a man who is more career/investments oriented, and who also has some considerable wealth. Our hero leaves America to live in Paris, study, contemplate, and have a variety of adventures with more earthy and 'down to earth' people.

He seems to take jobs as a laborer, or at least socialize with laborers and longshoremen. He spends several weeks playing cards with a flamboyant, rough and tumble man who is rumored to cheat at the game.

One night, during a card game, the this card-shark tells our hero that he once went to India to visit a "holy man". He describes this holy man as most remarkable because it is not by anything he says or teaches that he helps people, but merely by his presence.

Of course, this "holy man", who remains unnamed in the movie, was in real life Ramana Maharshi, whom Somerset Maughm visited for a week.

When our hero asks the cardshark why he was moved to visit India, he answers that he is always travelling about, trying to escape someone whom he has wronged. In every port and city, he constantly expects at any moment to feel a hand on his shoulder and find that he has been tracked down and discovered.

Our hero asks the cardshark "Wouldnt it be better to stop running and face your punishment?"

"Oh, no.", he answers, "it is not punishment I would have to face, for I could easily face execution or imprisonment. It is love and forgiveness which I must face, and which I cannot endure. For, you see, it is no person whom I have wronged, but it is God. God is the one who relentlessly pursues me and whom I forever flee. For I am a de-frocked priest."

Now, getting back to the real life pilgrimage of Somerset Maugham to Ramana Maharshi:

On Maugham 's first day at the Ashram, he wandered by the room where Ramana Maharshi was seated with his devotees. Maugham did not enter the room, for he was wearing big klunky boots, which he did not feel like removing (and he would not be allowed in with boots or shoes on). So Maugham simply peeked in the room to observe the scene, and then went up to his room. Maharshi Ramana was aware of his visitor, and the next day went to Maugham's room for a private meeting. As was Ramana's practice, he simply sat in silence gazing at Maugham. Maugham became slightly uneasy and nervous after the first minute or two, and asked "Is there anything that I should be doing now. Is something supposed to happen?" (an understandable western apprehension and expectation). Appearantly, at some point during the visit, Maugham became quite overcome for some reason and fainted briefly. Maugham returned to England, but before leaving, requested that any books or literature availble from the Ashram be forwarded to him in England.

Of course the scene in the novel/movie, "The Razor's Edge", depicts the "holy man", not as Ramana Maharshi looked and acted, but as a more "western" and verbal holy man with a long flowing beard and a library of books.

The holy man sends our hero up to a hut in the mountains to meditate for some weeks, hinting that "sometimes strange things happen when alone in those mountans", and adding "but what happens depends on YOU."

Some weeks later, the Holy Man goes to visit him in the mountain hut, and our hero relates his experience: "at the moment of dawn, when night turns to day, I experienced a oneness with God." The holy man tells him to return to his country and his people, and that this experience of oneness will remain with him for the rest of his life.

I did see an incredible similarity between the character in the book and myself, although the book's character had fewer flaws and shortcoming than I have.

Here is a little background on the real life Ramana Maharshi whom Maughm visited, and some detail regarding Maharshi's literature, which Maughm requested:

Venkataraman, later to be known as Ramana Maharshi, was born at the end of 1879 and left his body in April 1950.

He was a normal boy loving games but not much interested in his lessons, though he had a good memory when he cared to study. He was an abnormally heavy sleeper and once they had to break open the door of the room in which he slept before they could wake him up. His friends took advantage of this abnormality. They would pull him off his bed while still asleep and take him with them, buffeting him and playing on him every trick which they would not dare to try when he was awake. It is possible that his natural ability for heavy sleep was associated with his future attainment; the tremendous power of his concentration.

He was not much interested in religion, though he would pay the usual visits to the temple, customary for any normal Hindu boy.

At the age of 16, in the upstairs room of his uncle's house, he had the great experience which was going to change everything. Let us hear what he himself said about it:

As I sat alone, there was nothing wrong with my health. But a sudden and unmistakable fear of death seized me. I felt I was going to die. Why I should have so felt cannot be explained by anything felt in the body. Nor could I explain it to myself then. I did not however trouble myself to discover if the fear was well grounded. I felt "I am going to die," and at once set about thinking out what I sould do. I did not care to consult doctors or elders or even friends. I felt I had to solve the problem myself then and there.

"The shock of death made me at once introspective, or introverted. I said to myself mentally, 'Now, death has come. What does it mean? What is it that is dying? This body dies.' I at once dramatized the scene of death. I extended my limbs and held them rigid as though rigor-mortis had set in. I imitated a corpse to lend an air of reality to my further investigation. I held my breath and kept my mouth closed, pressing my lips tightly together so that no sound might escape. Let not the word 'I' or any other word be uttered! ......

Let us consider what had happened to young Venkataraman in that upper room. When he lay on the floor death had come to him. 'What was that death he experienced but he death of the ego? The ego itself is entirely illusory as such, as the Buddhists say, but granted that even if it has a sort of existence there is nothing permanent about it. It changes from moment to moment. One ego decides to do something on the morrow, but when tomorrow comes another ego is in charge and refuses to do it. So we change from day to day, or rather the egos with which we associate ourselves change. But behind each of them is the permanent witness. But the witness is not confined to witnessing to doings of the little ego, it is the Supreme Witness, or that Bhagavan called the SELF. There is only one Self, and this is the only permanent thing there is.

So Venkataraman had died. After this happened he had no longer any name, he never signed anything or acknowledged any name as his. People called him Ramana, and he knew that they were talking about him when they did so, but even if they had called him by any other name he would have acknowledge it. Shortly afterwards when he left home, he left an unsigned note to inform them of his departure.

In this one short hour in that upper room, Venkataraman had become a fully realized soul. From that day on, his life was, from a mundane point of view, almost eventless. He left home shortly afterwards and went to settle in Tiruvannamalai where he remained for the rest of his life.

Ramana Maharshi had written a small pamphlet called "Who am I?". Here is contained the very essence of his teachings. Though Ramana was only 21 when he wrote it, it is complete and has never needed to be changed. Ramana always insisted that the book should be sold so cheaply that even the poorest person might afford it. Originally, the book cost no more than ten cents. The teachings in this book are direct from his own experience and in no way were influenced by his readings of Upanisads and other sacred scriptures, which were only brought to him by others later in his life, for him to read and explain. Later reading of this ancient sacred scriptures, Ramana realized the philosophic import of what had happened to him and was so able to co-ordinate his experiences and fit them into the Hindu tradition. But the very essence of what is necessary for Self-realization is contained in Ramana's little pamphlet. No more is needed.
 
I hadn't yet found TBF when you wrote this, Sitaram:

I did see an incredible similarity between the character in the book and myself, although the book's character had fewer flaws and shortcoming than I have.

I haven't read the book or even seen the movie, although I do intend to do so. Do you have anything to add to your observations now, six years later?

Still
 
Six years later - part 1 of 2

StillILearn said:
I hadn't yet found TBF when you wrote this, Sitaram:



I haven't read the book or even seen the movie, although I do intend to do so. Do you have anything to add to your observations now, six years later?

Still


http://forums.thebookforum.com/showthread.php?t=7393&referrerid=5083

see post #20 in the above thread (excerpt in post below)

In order to answer your question, I would like to refer to one of the first posts I made at this forum, a year ago.

My answer, which follows, will perhaps seem too religious, and be viewed as a violation of forum rules. I take boldness to offer such an answer on the grounds that the novel in question The Razor’s Edge, and the historical connection between the real life Somerset Maugham and the real life Ramana Maharshi, cannot be fully understood unless one has some foundation in both ancient Christian and Hindu traditions and thought.

I want to focus on the excerpt where I speak of with a college student in the USA, a Hindu of Indian descent, who had contacted me six years earlier, with a spiritual question on what is purity?.

The answer which I gave to this student is similar to the answer which I shall give to your present question, regarding my thoughts six years later: namely, that I passed through many things, became many things, and did not feel the need to cling to any one experience. I have reached a point in my life now, where I no longer feel the need to engage in any form of corporate endeavor, religions, political or academic. I feel content to simply draw from my experiences and write for those few who come to me with various questions.

I make reference to this excerpt to illustrate something of the experiences I have had, and how I have changed over the years, with regard to a Razor’s Edge scenario, a Western Somerset Maugham, and an Eastern Ramana Maharshi.

That stranger had uncanny insight to tell me that I resemble the protagonist of Maugham’s novel. Without ever intending to do so, I had not only actually made, not a physical, but a personal journey, similar to the one described in The Razor’s Edge, but also became at times for various people a Ramana Maharshi, on a minor scale, both in a Guyanese temple, and also on the Internet. In the temple, there were actually people who would approach me and worship me. In the context of their culture, it would not have been appropriate for me to reject or censure their worship, or do anything other than offer them a gesture (mudra) of blessing in return. Such events are very difficult for westerners to understand. People raised in India find such behavior quite natural and understandable.

There is one analogous example in Western Christianity, namely, the role of a vested Eastern Bishop as a “living icon”, liturgically.

I wrote about this at length at one site on Hinduism:

http://www.hindunet.com/forum/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=30048&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&vc=1

We see the analog of this sentiment (very dimly) in St. Paul's words "God places His treasures of gold in vessels of clay." Of course, we humans are the earthen vessels, with our individual faults, passions, addictions, handicaps, appetites and shortcomings (the clay). But the gold that is deposited within us is the word. For Western Christianity, the word of course is the logos, Christ, who said "I am the way, the truth and the light". But in a broader sense, a sense which encompasses Eastern Thought as well, the word is those eternal spiritual truths which age after age, like birds from the heavens, come and roost in the hearts and minds of certain individuals, certain Gurus, teachers, Prophets, and also authors of fiction, who in turn take courage and give voice to that word, at any cost, at any risk, even if it means that they pay for the word with their lives. There are those such as Buddha and Guru Nanak and Rumi and Ramana Maharshi, who arise in every century, and Tulsidas, and Chaitanya and Vallabh, and many others. These are the vessels of clay which contain the gold. The field which contains the pearl of great price is that human heart which contains the treasure of the word. That great price which one pays for the field, to gain the word is one's life. Either one consecrates ones life to prospecting for, uncovering, and revealing that word hidden in the heart, or one sacrifices ones life in religious or political persecution for having been too outspoken. Whichever price one is deemed worthy to pay, the price is dear, and yet modest compared to the priceless treasure which is obtained.


Certainly it is true that, whoever or whatever you accept as teacher or guide or authority indeed becomes a god for you, because that teacher and guide fashions and shapes your concept of who and what God is , the nature of God's Personality, and the relationship of that Personality to you as an individual.


Few Western Christians are aware of something in Eastern Orthodox Christian belief and practice which closely resembles this Hindu notion of "Guru is God". The West often chuckles at the word Swami, which means Master, and pictures some self-seeking charlatan wearing a turban and colored robes. And certainly there have always been many such charlatans in the word, in every faith and culture. But the word in Greek for Bishop is "Despoti" (yes, the same root word as Despot or Tyrant). "Despoti" means "Master", just like Swami. The Russian Orthodox Christians of the first millennium faithfully translated "Despoti" to the Slavonic word "Vladika". The Russians also address their Bishop as Vladika (Master). And in Hinduism, a "GO-SWAMI" is "one who has mastered the senses" (Go can mean the senses, or Go can also mean herded creatures, in which case the "Goswami" is the Shepherd of sheep). Certainly, even Plato in his Republic has imagery about the soul being the wild horses of the senses and appetites, hitched to a chariot, and Nous or Mind or Reason is the Master Charioteer, who harnesses and tames and directs their wild energies and impulses.


When a Bishop is present in a church (even a remote rural village church), it is quite an event. There is a special ceremony in the center of the church, prior to the beginning of the Liturgy (or Mass). It is a religious ritual in which the Bishop is "vested" or dressed in his vestments. Once the Bishop is vested and begins to serve the Liturgy, he is no longer the individual "clay vessel" named John or Peter or Ambrose or Luke (or whatever his personal name might be). He has now become the living icon (or image) of Christ, and he is treated as such for the entire service. And since Christ is one with the Trinity, the Bishop in essence Father, Son and Holy Spirit (or in Hindu terms, the Swami or Guru IS Bramha, Vishnu, Maheswara). When a priest or deacon takes his incense (dhoop) container (which swings on a chain) and incenses the Icon (or picture) of Christ which is on the iconostasis at the front of the church, he incenses it three times. But, if a Bishop is present, the priest or deacon will incense the Bishop nine times, precisely because the Bishop is the living icon of Christ (whereas the painting is not alive). And remember, the Bishop is addressed as Master or Swami.


We must also look at Greek Orthodox Monastic tradition and practice, which has remained unchanged for the past 2000 years. The Greek Orthodox theological understanding is that mankind fell away from God and Grace because of disobedience in the Garden of Eden by breaking God's only commandment and tasting of the one fruit which was forbidden. Therefore, in Greek Theology, the cure for disobedience is obedience; surrender of the will in complete, unquestioning obedience to a master (or Swami). That surrender and obedience is the soul and essence of Greek Monastic life. The highest level of Monk is the Elder, or Spiritual Father (e.g. Staretz Zossima in The Brothers Karamazov). This is someone whose "clay" has been long-baked in the oven of suffering and adversity of ascetical renunciation(TAPAS). Symbolically, the Elder or Spiritual Father (though he is human and has faults and weaknesses) literally becomes a living icon of Christ for the disciple (Chela). So quite literally, the Bishop is God, the Elder or Spiritual Father is God, and Guru is God.
 
Six years later - part 2 of 2

http://forums.thebookforum.com/showthread.php?t=7393&referrerid=5083

see post #20 in the above thread


It is ironic that, at this very moment, as I add to this post, a college student in her 4th year has PM’ed me in AOL. She first contacted me 6 years ago with various "theological questions." Just now, I replied to her: "It seems to me that people go through life seeking some human embodiment of truth which will not betray or disappoint them. Some seek it in a religious leader, others in a political leader, yet others in an intellectual leader."

She first contacted me six years ago to ask, "What is purity?"

We had a long conversation, in which I said, "Purity is to pass through all, experience all, become all, yet cling to nothing, and remain untainted."

Is my statement philosophical? Is my statement religious? One might be tempted to say, at first glance, that my statement is anything but political. And yet, there is a way I might argue that my statement is a political one. Someone once made the statement that part of the greatness of George Washington was his willingness to return to private life after his term in office, rather than to cling to that position of power. Such humility, if you will, not to cling, is a form of political purity. Gandhi certain entered into political life, and yet one sees that same sort of purity. Einstein was offered the position of prime minister in the newly formed state of Israel, but declined the honor, explaining that he was better suited to the life of a scientist than to the life of a political leader.
 
Very interesting musings Sitaram, I'm definitely enjoying this thread as it deals with religious history and of course, elaborates on certain things that we've discussed on your site and via PM in the past. I'll definitely have to check out The Razor's Edge myself and offer my own view at a different time. Keep posting, defintiely a good thread.:)
 
Back
Top