29 May,2011 09:04 AM IST | | Devdutt Pattanaik
At an award function, I saw an ancient songwriter win great awards. His zillionth! He is among the last of great songwriters. I wondered if he has nurtured talent, created a pipeline of songwriters, sharing with them tips and his techniques, so that tinseltown can have wonderful songs even when he is gone. I suspect he has not.
Then I saw an ancient actor, who is still acting, but also nurturing talentu00a0-- his son. That is how far it goes. Sons, daughters, and occasionally, nephews. And when you question why only nurture family, they whimper or bark, "What else do you expect me to do? Nurture your child?"
Illustration/ Devdutt Pattanaik
That is when you realise that success and maturity have no relationship. Success is the acquisition of Lakshmi. Maturity is the sharing of Saraswati. Growth in one does not mean growth in the other.Saraswati, the goddess of knowledge, is different from Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth. Saraswati is dressed in white, without jewels, like a sage or a widow (depending on how you see it) while Lakshmi is dressed in red, fully bejewelled.
Saraswati is self-sufficient and indifferent while Lakshmi is restless and beguiling. You can leave wealth behind when you die, but do not leave your knowledge when you die. You have to make a conscious effort while you are alive to give it away.u00a0Among many talented classical musicians and dancers, there is a growing tendency to give that Saraswati only to biological children, not talented students. This is immaturity: "I will give mine only to mine." So my Lakshmi and my Saraswati will go only to my children. But while this is easy in case of wealth, it is not so in case of knowledge. Bequeathing Saraswati demands different things as compared to bequeathing Lakshmi.
Imagine a bowl of glass and a bowl of clay. Both can contain rice. But when struck with a stick, both produce different sounds. This analogy is a good way to understand transference of wealth and knowledge. The value of wealth is not dependent on the recipient: a hundred rupee note is the same in the hands of a smart man and in the hands of a stupid man. But knowledge is dependent on the recipient: the same skill manifests differently in the smart man and differently in the stupid man. Given the same ingredients and the same recipe, two cooks will produce very different dishes.
And yet, knowing this, artists and entrepreneurs insist on giving their knowledge (if they choose to, that is) to their children, their capability and capacity notwithstanding. And so the world that is left behind ends up being poorer, not richer, despite a vast inheritance. Skills so finely groomed by the greatest of talents dies with them, or lie unutilised, or under-utilised in the hands of the lesser-talented children.
The author is Chief Belief Officer of the Future Group, and can be reached at devdutt@devdutt.com
The views expressed in this column are the individual's and don't represent those of the paper.
