The Symphony of Religion; its piety and delusion

Perhaps soyinka irreverence for the inbred convebntional credos of the worship of God is subjective to his mind filled categorical bohemianism, for in true sense his credo of being and nothingness is an atavistic reaction against the two imported and most enshrined religions of Africa.

The book is an essay that attempts a propagation of the uniqueness of indigenous African religion much against the background of the inherited factions of religions (Christianity and Islam) that have since become popular sects of religion in Africa. Soyinka however, tries to identify the relationship between the two religions by comparing the Eucharist proclaimed by the bible and Koran with Mahapralayi of Buddhism; a return to the state of nothingness and void. To him if there could be a similitude between Buddhism -which happens to be an indigenous religious belief among the Indians- and the inherited factions of islam and Christianity, it would suggest that Buddhism is true, likewise, Africa indigenous religion which is the bed rock of African spirituality.

Soyinka informed a critical confrontation, assailing Christianity and islam as embodiments of banal fanatism and lacking constructive and accommodating culture for other religions. He avowed bitterly the complex structure of man’s tyrannical and impious attitudinal support for his beliefs. This according to the book has been attributive to the series of wars between the warring religious groups. The attempt for either religion to stifle the existence of the other has characterized them as both been passive and active violent harbingers on the polity. According to him, the two religions are not particularly worthy of the standard that befits a pious one.

The book shed light on the conceptual nature of nothingness, the rhetoric and underlying metaphors. The supercilious belief of nothingness immediately would mean worthlessness in indication of its lexical semantics; however Soyinka discerned nothingness as the origin. He gave an analogous representation of sheik Gumi’s memoable statement ‘Christianity is nothing’ using the seemingly profane statement as an elucidation of what he understands by nothingness. In the beginning was nothing, everything was void,so if Christianity could be described as nothing it should be observed as a gesture of compliment rather than derogation or profanity. One could not shun from the profundity of Soyinka in his cryptic explanation of the concept of nothingness, which forms a conflicting pulse on the conventional belief of nothingness, instead, the enlightenment provided therein should be admitted in gratitude by Christian.

Belief is a crucial phenomenon in the creation and sustenance of religion. A man who believes nothing is nothing. Perhaps Soyinka would have sounded this much better as a man who believes not in Christianity and islam is nothing. Noting Soyinka’s disgruntled perception of the foundational status quo of religion, his dialectics on the weighty incubus of beliefs contrasts against the regulation of mundane desires. The battle between man’s desire and the essential values of religion -which ultimately serve its ritualistic significance- has presented religion a substance of human inclination rather than a doctrine to be adhered with. Soyinka simulated instances by narrating the sad ordeal between the Christian community and the Islamic at the university of ibadan. A contest between both parties, on which totem would grace the religious icon of the citadel, is it the crucifix or the crescent. Painfully, both are just symbols determinant of the histories of the two and not the essential rudiment perceived in favour of good religious sects.

The book shows the significant influence of religion on secular politics, giving a crucial example of the fatal skirmish that erupted in Uttar Prudesh between the hindus and the Moslems. Conceivably, the hindus claimed that the Moslem shrine (mosque) sits on the origin of hindu the birth place of Rama. This consequently led to a clash between the two major religion of the state, which subsequently led to the fall of Mr. Singh the Prime Minster of the State. In this indication Soyinka proved that religion is biased in its fundamental doctrine which its bed rock is on piety, humility and truth. Apparently, these have been found laking in the above scenario. For soyika religion has only successfully built a cult of self preening, inbred, ostentatious power brokers whose legacies are abortive of religion fundaments

The credo of being ad nothingness berates the intolerance of religions, of course, all religions in this perspective are guilty except the African indigenous religion which according to Soyinka contains that true spiritual and communal value that trails a good religion. His dissatisfactory remark about religion especially chritianity and islam might have been foisted by the effervescent individual attempt by the two religions to stifle the sustenance of African spirituality. Perhaps a passage from the book will lend a hand of understanding.

I seize every occasion to call attention to the resilience and vibrancy of these religions; I shall do so again today, employing extracts from statements I have made before. Their validity remains unchanged and, they repeat a necessary warning against the unrepentant in this stubborn reiteration of the nothingness credo against African spirituality.

Let those who wish to retain or elevate religion as a twenty first century project feel free to do so , but let it not be done as continuation of the game of denigration against African spiritual heritage.

‘Althoh the African indigenous religion is the outset but today languishes at the outskirt, like an outcast’ (Oswald mtshalli), perhaps ‘a land owner that has since become a serf’ (Okot p bitek). These are statements in the wrks of some of africa’s literary giants. They might have shared serried minds with soyinka on the subject of the annihilation of African indigenous culture and origin.

However, wole soyinka atavism is not extreme for he recognizes to a certain elevation all religions –Islam and Christianity inclusive-

I must not be misunderstood. I extol, indeed, I partake with creative and human enlargemet, in the inherent and productive value of all religions, their monumental legacies to the world, their piety and unflagging spirit of the search for truth. I acknowledge that the wold would be a much poorer place without the phenomenon of religion.

Soyinka’s conceptual definition of godhead unifies all religions. It attributes the intrinsic quality of truth, beauty and wisdom in one fold for all religions. Hence if the definitive quality of every god head is based on this trinity –truth, beauty and wisdom-, it therefore suffices to hold that every god head is symbolic of these universal virtues.

… it will be sufficient to accept that wherever we find truth, wisdom and beauty in their purest essence, we have indeed glimpsed fundamental attributes of god head.

In spite of Soyinka’s indefatigable heralding of the concept of belief, he traced an outcome to the philosophical. What are we? Who are we? Why are we? In answering this queer qyestion, he bears an explanation of the human specie, describing the difference between the man and all other things that surround him.where the man is indirectly ‘we’ and other things the ‘otherness’. The philosophical summary therefore is that; should man be perceived worthless without his cognizance for this otherness. If so then the attributive statement such as I believe then I am should not present a man more worthy of his desired status in the society. In summary, it is not necessary for man to have a religion as that does not define man. Soyinka sees man a complete being even without the events of religion piety, economic power and political might. Therefore the ultimate definition of man should be I feel therefore I am and not any of I believe therefore I am, I produce therefore I am, I rule therefore I am.

In final, Soyinka advised that selectiveness is the key. He subtly charged individuals to pay more attention to their inward mind than be buffeted into a religion that contradicts their individual doctrines. Here Soyinka is encouraging people the way of bohemianism and heresy all together as some may conceive it. He preaches the acceptance of the indigenous African religion exalting Obatala, Odu Ifa, Orunmila.

I say to you go to the Orisa, learn from them and be wise. The religion of the Orisa does not believe in tenet, liturgy, catechism or practice

It must be mentioned here that Soyinka mitigated his passion by not mentioning other indigenous related African gods but restricted his canvass for the Yoruba mythological gods. Perhaps soyinka dose not recognize that human nature takes a systematic and gradual process in changing orientations. In simpler terms it is not easy to preach liberalism to a tortuous mind of religious background.

In all credo of being and nothingness is a revolutionary essay seeking to reestablish the lost African heritages which are being shoved into extinction by foreign beliefs, while at the same expressing disgust at the fanatical religious war that rage between the so much revered religions. He prophesized a surviving Africa if there will be reconciliation and tolerance of the indigenous African religion. He berated the excuse that African religion does not have a documentation for its survival and sustenance, arguing that such statements position Africa as a race without a history. After all, the real documentation of African history was documented from the oral performance and rendition of its sages.

THE TRAGEDY OF WOLE SOYINKA

I must say before I plough my hand into this, that I am writing this for the benefit of the gross realities that have often played emotions between creators and critics, and I have often wondered what keeps the distance between a creator and a critic, so unfamiliar that both had to stand at fiendish distance from each other, but my answer to that had stood aloof in the wind with no possible response coming to it. For this little discomfort I have laboured my time to shed my mind on this sensitive issue

Perhaps Prof Soyinka did not share the orientation of the Greek critic, that a writer must not import difficult figures into his writing so that he will not become obscure for his audience and that every writer must ensure that his piece of writing is deliberated between terseness and obscurity, bombast and grandeur. Often, most of those who had to read wole soyinka had had a simple mind of entrusting their wits to their instinct to understand his output, while some simply feel that for sheer display of any of his books they signal the infinite belief that they have attained that level of utmost enlightenment. I wouldn’t for instance want to compare Professor Soyinka style of writing with the likes of Conrad, Chekov and Cohen for they seem to be worlds apart yet sincerely I cannot say words apart, obviously the laureate may have been a proselyte of these trios

My concern here is not to criticize wole soyinka for in the opium of his aptitude and the extract from his books, I stand unaccounted for, hence my major priority is to honestly stand between him and his most feared or should I say fierce critic, Chinweizu. When I was an undergraduate and read chinweizu and the bolekajas and their endless ‘attacks’ on the Nobel laureate, I had thought that Chiweizu was only being eaten by discontent of status but over some time and with constant attention to my reason I came to the full realization that perhaps Chiweizu might be in line, being aware that Chinweizu is a structuralist, who strongly supports the celebration of Africanism to the heart of the whole world, rather than beaming a cocktail of African structure, his philosophies would always antagonize Soyinka’s.

Though Prof. Wole Soyinka has been described as a man of letters by some of his African contemporaries and largely by the west and the orients, his cryptic style of writing seem not to present him as an African. I remember one of the discourses between him and Ali Mazuri over the Internet. The latter claimed that the Nobel laureate conflicts the natural cosmology of Africa with the fantasies of his self expressionism. His over all impact on what African literature is is shabby. In his essence, Wole Soyinka has not in true sense evolved to the world the face of African Literature. In the same vein, Durosimi Jones (the first to do a major criticism of Soyinka’s works) in his subtle criticism of Wole Soyinka believes that a writer who writes with nonchalant attention for his audience has not mastered the significance of the art, hence the fierce criticism. While Wole Soyinka in his ever vibrant atavistic reaction thundered in defense that he does not write mediocrity, therefore a mediocre should not hope to understand the focus of his letters. Perhaps the use of words by Wole Soyinka is elaborately outlandish. The intense, cryptic, laborious and poetic quality of his prose language encumbers the understanding of it. In addition, let me quickly say that if Prof. Wole Soyinka had remained a playwright and poet and not venture the depth of his mind on prose maybe he would have had lesser tragedy from his critics, especially on expressionism. His belief that he has cultivated a language more enchanting and psychedelic combines to the outrage against his erudite prowess. Zulu Sofola, a die hard critic of his, had outnumbered series of presentations by the disciples of the Nobel laureate in an essay in which he assays the methods and motif of Prof. Soyinka. In the essay she contributed although sarcastically to other anti-Soyinka critics arguing that the worth of Soyinka works would have been more instrumental to the development of Africa, if only the laureate would arrange his complex metaphors in a fashion of comfort that behoves African specification. With this statement, I wished to ponder whether there is actually a symbolic difference between what we speak as the lingua franca and the excusable complex we articulate daily that Sofola had to describe a language as African specification. In my assumption, I want to believe that she was referring to what is arbitrarily conventional to the African method of speaking; what I visualize as some what lacking in the communicative function of world standard and utilities.
Critics have always bore their heavy criticism on Soyinka’s works, of which some are particularly personal grudges considering the formats of the criticism while some just carry the parameters of schmaltz that are adequately witty.

One of the questions that have often charged the significance of criticism in Africa is the wonder on what qualities a good critic should possess. Resources from wole ‘Soyinka’s society “a good critic”, Esiaba Erobi avows and I quote that a ‘critic is one who knows the way but cannot drive a car’ while a good critic, according to him is one that does not write like Paul Gilroy and Chinweizu. In his belief, “a good critic is not one that finds fault but gives comments that help to understand the work much better, that is, without bias as there are many biased, or what we call ‘cabalistic critics’.” But I dare say that critics’ evaluations are myopically fundamental to their emotions more than the set values by Esiaba Erobi above. As a result, critics are guilty of impassioned criticism, just as they are sometimes of works. a clear example of such emotive schmaltzy criticism is one of Dryden’s on Milton’s paradise lost asserting that the reason why Milton writes free verse is due to his blindness, since without sight he cannot see the beauty therein a rhymed poem. While in spite of the fact that worst poems than Paradise lost, without much attention to the concept of poetry at that time met moderate fate with the likes of Persey Byshey Shelley on Charles webbe the rain.
In my candid opinion, I want to say that there are soft and hard critics, just as there are writers that are hard with their words and some soft with theirs. Everyone cannot be like Femi Osofisan who deliberately avoids creating a spleen for the writers whose work he his reviewing but rather effusively splints the writers flaws by wittingly manipulating an unreachable latent essence for the discovery. And of course my very own Odia Ofeimun, a characteristically critical modem of criticism that was recently described as telling the truth about every work he assesses. It was said or so I read that if you don’t want the truth don’t ask Ofeimun.

Towards the decolonization of Africa in chinweizu’s essay, his resentment against Soyinka, I want to believe is not essentially his language but the lack of Africanism display both of his works and mind. I should stand between both him and the neo negritudist and leftist who sharpen their critic teeth against his Corpus, that Soyinka serves a distorted presentation of African literature which harbours a lacking institute of Africa and her mores. To them the rate at which Soyinka is going, the preservation of African values which others, like Chinua Achebe, Ali Mazrui, Ngugi Wa Thiong o have perspired for would be lost. Perhaps, to Wole Soyinka Africa deserves an accomplishment in the fleeting hi-tech expansion in the world. He is not a scientist but would so much love to create a prodigious route, that literature; especially African literature can be informed of modernism, instead of the conservative metaphors of flaying slavery, racism, feudal leadership and all others. In his subconscious initiative, the development of Africa’s art should not only be a burden of his past but recognition of our miscegenation. It is not possible to quieten this stern affiliation from our psychic. In fact some share more of it than their African values.
In the world of art there are critics and consumers for every written work, either poorly done or fantastic. It is the consummation of every literary output. A work that has not gone through the scalpel and fire of critics, cannot be said to have been tested of its artistic and creative values. It is worthy to know that what stands useful in any literary criticism is for the critic to provide educative insight to a work and not condemn it. The light entertainment that has been provided by both Soyinka and the antagonistic Bolekaja cum Chinweizu over the years has limited both creative expansion and lulled a recommendable African criticism.

Yet in this lingering controversy, I long to understand the solubility of Prof. Soyinka’s prose style, the configurations, permissibility and the voided acceptances. However, he is a man who has been ambushed literarily and for not his tenacity and resoluteness, he would have been down tooled like E.M Forster who in defeat said that the society he writes about no longer exist and John Keats whose exuberance as a Romanists was ridiculed by critics who believe that his muse was not ripe enough for that age and more so the vision he represents. Of course, not forgetting my very own Ayi Kwei Armah who has sustained several accusations from critics, evaluating his writing as too sublime and not in toned with reality. After all he claimed that he is the poets’ poet. As well as Chinua Achebe who thinks that his lantern could no longer shed the artistic innocence needed for the age. Not after his beautiful Africa-captured novels, which have left a distastefull bile on our tongues. I do share the overzealous extract of some critics such as chiweizu, Odia Ofeimun, Tamure Ojaide, Tayo Olafioye, etc but when It becomes too enforced by emotion, the trinity (the creator, the consumer and the critic) becomes unbalanced.

In all I would like to hold that the Wole Soyinka has indeed proved to the ignorant globe that though Africans are not in contention with true tech science and its art but what we do with literature and its art is unchallenging.

Sincerely, I love to know how Soyinka’s mind works and I definitely would appreciate if he would stand the icon he is and remain unshaken

rat race (not a joke)

I was privileged to have witnessed a young fellow beat an 'innocent' rat to a pulp. i was bothered by this sight and stopped to probe the boy why he showed such callous attitude to the rat which happened to be outside the way of the boy i.e the rat couldn't be considered a pest to the boy because it wasn't living on the him. the poor rat was a street rat which according to my opinion is a cleaner of human wastes as such a cleaner of the environment. Enquiring from the boy reason for his deed. He said that every rat must die as they are responsible for the rat race which every human is guilty of. i was more confused than i was. imagine such a response