Rabindranath Tagore, on Freedom

I have very ambivalent feelings when it comes to India's Independence Day.
On this occasion, I can only think of these immortal lines from Tagore's "Gitanjali".
Keeping these lines in mind, can we say that we're really free?

Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high;
Where knowledge is free;
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls;
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert of dead habit;
Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever-widening thought & action -
Into that haven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake.

A few thoughts on freedom on Independence Day

Physical, external, & socio-political Freedom is the Freedom of Self-determination: the freedom to pursue one's values, to shape one's life in the image of one's personal ideal, to translate one's ideas into achievable concrete goals.
This freedom is self-destructive if not founded on Truth.
To live in Truth is not to do what I want to do, but to do what I ought to do.
What you want to do may or may not be right or good & hence, may be self-destructive -- the right & the good is what you ought to do.
Here we come to inner, psychological freedom.
The crux of the concept of Freedom is SELF-Direction, or SELF-Determination.
Hence, inner freedom - i.e., Freedom of Consciousness - is freedom from a state in which the contents of my consciousness: my knowledge, ideas, convictions are not consciously chosen by the purposeful exertion of MY WILL.
A consciousness shaped by random forces & impulses- functioning without clarity of perception & comprehension - is not a free consciousness.
I am free in anything in which the decision is MINE.
So what makes a MINE possible, in context of man's consciousness?
It means that I SHAPE my own mind & soul.
Purposeful exertion of will necessarily implies & constitutes consciously perceiving reality, consciously analyzing all the inputs I get, consciously engaging in integration & differentiation, in the process of evaluation, in selecting & deciding & prefering.
This necessarily implies & constitutes focusing on reality - on being fully conscious of truth.
Only when I consciously focus on reality - only when I wilfully direct the powers of my consciousness at a grasp of truth - in other words, only when I THINK - am I free.
This means: searching for WHAT IS TRUTH, WHAT OUGHT TO BE DONE.
Otherwise, the awareness, differentiation, integration, analysis, evaluation & decision is not MINE - it is basically unconscious or semi-conscious, involving only a modicum of freedom.
Thus, real freedom is not "doing what you like" - but doing what you ought to like (this, only in the broadest, abstract terms - in metaphysical, spiritual & moral terms).

Freedom is the freedom from lack of focus on reality, & grasp of truth. Freedom from thoughtlessness, from irrationality.
As long as you are unaware of the totality & essence of truth, you are not acting in complete consciousness of - who you are - what the meaning & purpose of life is - and what are the goals proper to you as a human being.
The only true Freedom is the Freedom to Know, Learn, Think, & shape one's life in accordance to one's perception of Truth ONESELF.
The curtailment of THIS freedom is true lack of freedom.
All struggle for liberty is the struggle for the freedom of the individual to determine his life in accordance with HIS perception of eternal truth (grasped only through a process of experience & thought).
Self-determination being the very crux of the concept of freedom, the individual ought to think for HIMSELF, he ought to voluntarily focus on reality & grasp his own deepest truth HIMSELF, he ought to set his goals HIMSELF.
This gives him dignity, implies self-reliance, and is a direct manifestation of his autonomy as a being endowed with mind & conscience.
Conscription, for e.g., is a violation of freedom, because men are not allowed to evaluate & decide for themselves whether they ought to kill & be prepared to get killed, or not.
This evaluation & decision-making is done by someone else.
It directly violates man's status as a rational entity who can process facts, grasp truths, formulate convictions, and take decisions to shape the course of his life.
It deprives man of volitional integration of his life-action with the essential appartus he's endowed with to decide HOW to live: his mind & his conscience.

But, strictly speaking, the whole process of focusing on reality & grasping truth is a purely inner, individual phenomenon, and nobody can take it from you.
The Freedom of Consciousness can never be curbed: that's possible only when the consciousness itself is destroyed.
You might have all the freedom to do whatever you want to do, but if you are not consciously acting in accordance with the laws of truth, you are in bondage to ignorance & error --- to never-ending fear & suffering, hatred & anger, resentment & bewilderment.
You are in bondage to the determinism of forces & laws which act upon your life.
You are You only when you shape your soul & act in accordance with reality.
True freedom is the freedom to determine your life in full awareness of truth.

Thoughts on Non-violence, & other related issues

"The profession of true Christianity in its true meaning, including non-resistance to evil, frees people from all external power". - Leo Tolstoy, "The Law of Love & the Law of Violence"

I've been reading Tolstoy off-late, and am deeply influenced by the power of his arguments. The more I read him, the more I am convinced that he has a very important point to make, though I don't think he either clarified all points that had to be clarified, nor actually showed the way his profound ideas could be implemented.
That is the very, very difficult task of the future.
They all were right: Dotsoevsky, Tolstoy, & Tagore. They knew what was coming, and warned the world, but nobody paid attention.
The fears they harbored for the future then, are still applicable, and - as I see it - the only place where the solution lies, is in their writings, & in ancient, perennial wisdom.
Non-violence obviously raises far more questions than gives answers.
As I see it, non-violence is the most powerful instrument by which men can free themselves from those groups which seek to keep mankind in a state of conflict & chaos, by engineering that conflict & chaos.
It transfers the locus of control from external authority to the individual's conscience & rationality.
Thus, Non-violence is empowerment of the individual.
For centuries on end, a small - a very small - group of men have played havoc with humanity by manipulating the masses, and this has been possible only because men have accepted the law of violence.
The first thing men must get rid of, if they want to solve the problems which afflict mankind, is to totally & absolutely abandon the idea that violence can solve the problems of man.
Religion - or mysticism - or spirituality - which are synonyms for me - are exactly the passionate efforts of the greatest men of history to FREE mankind from the constant, all-pervasive, invisible, insidious manipulation of certain cliques that seek to enslave the whole world, and have been doing it for millennia, now.
They are not only the expressions of the HIGHEST truth of Man - that he is ONE with Brahman - or the Tao - or Shunyata - but also the only solutions to the age-old problem of hatred, fear, conflict, murder, conquest, plunder, colonization, , exploitation, & war.
Would all these ever exist, if men truly inculcated the value of Love?
The law of Love was also recognized in India, long, long before the emergence of Christianity in the Middle East: "By seeing the self in all beings and all beings in the self one goes to Brahman, not by any other cause." (Kaivalya Upanishad)
What is this, if not the essence of Love, the very metaphysical-spiritual root of Love?

Tolstoy correctly recognizes that Christian law annuls the State - and thus, leads to what maybe called Anarchy. (Tolstoy is sometimes associated with what's called "Christian anarchism".)
And perhaps, the anarchists are right that as long as the Individual Man shall not perfect LOVE within himself, there shall be conflict, & he shall be dependent on others for the solution of those conflicts - and hence, the entire machinary of the state.
I am also beginning to see the relevance of the age-old emphasis on poverty (actually it means simplicity & austerity), on chastity (actually means absolute self-control & self-mastery of the mind, emotions, & body), & on renunciation (actually means non-attachment: a very signficant & complex idea, to be understood best in the sense of the Upanishadic injunction: Tyaktena bhunjita: Enjoy through renunciation; and further: Always performing works one should wish to live a hundred years...).
These qualities, perfected with love, make a man INCORRUPTIBLE.
They take him straight to the heart of truth, where he finds the answer to that greatest of all questions, the answers of which constitute the totality & essence of Vedic-Vedantic thought: What is it, by knowing which, one can know all?
These values turn men's attention away from their ego-sense -- from identification with the unstable, impermanent, & undefinable ego -- from a sense of separativeness, mortality & finitude -- to a sense of unity with the universe, immortality, & inexhaustible benevolence born of fearlessness, & a vanishing lust to possess & control.
In political terms, they actually make it impossible for men to be turned into puppets, into instruments for mutual destruction, never-ending disharmony, & global chaos.
For if men refuse to arm themselves & kill each other or harm each other, the secret cults which profit from all the chaos cannot create the chaos which keeps adding to their power & wealth.
It is precisely through private property, sex, money & (frivolous) art (today replaced by showbiz) - and very importantly, through altruistic-collectivist activism, & affirmation of violence - that these groups seek to pervert human consciousness, keep it from seeing the truth, keep it imprisoned in lower states of awareness & relatedness, - and fuel conflict, terror, war.

The topic does not come to an end here. If anything, it takes up its most difficult aspect, from here. For, Hindu philosophy clearly ABOLISHES all purpose by attainment of that which is at the root of all purpose. A man who has attained Moksha or Mukti or Nirvana has nothing more to seek, nothing more to do. This is openly acknowledged.
Abolition of purpose means abolition of action.
Action, however, does not have to come to an end - and this is one of the most important points in the Bhagavad Gita.
The idea in spiritual realization is not giving up action itself, but the Karmic effects of action.
(And, as I see it, in the enjoyment of life in a state of "detachment" - i.e. fundamental non-dependence on material values, being firmly established in Unity, and fully conscious of the delights, beauties & possibilites of existence.)
The Karmic effects of action are annulled with the achievement of Brahmanirvana, since the whole idea of Karma is nothing but the progress of the soul towards attainment of Brahmanirvana.
Action must, & can - continue, but from a totally different spiritual level of being.
This, however, is not an absolute, confirmed idea, but more of an approximation: I think this is what the scriptures enjoin us to do.
From this point of view, private property, sex, & wealth may not become instruments of dividing people, & perpetrating dissension.

Christianity also clearly recognizes the great idea of Union with God, which means Union with the All: "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word: that they may all be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us..." (John 17:20-21))
Hence, their initial social structure was Communist in nature. Strictly speaking, it was a continuation of the Essenic socio-economic system (limited to the Essenic brotherhood itself).
This, however, does not seem to be a necessity.
Not in the Vedantic outlook, where men live normal lives, but in a state of union with God.
The law of Non-violence seems to count on the benevolence & rationality of men in general, & the malevolence & power-lust of the few.
Can we say that perfection of Christian love within our souls can also solve the problem of private property, generation of wealth, and enjoyment of sex?
(Christian love is nothing but the emotional & psychological aspect of God-consciousness in the context of man's relationship with society.)
This is food for thought, and there seem to be many complications & considerations.
In the ultimate, I think (though I don't know for sure) Tolstoy denounced private property, as well as sex, except for the purposes of procreation.
This is neither the right approach, nor the desired condition, as far as I can understand.
It cannot lead to the right results (i.e. God-consciousness: union with Brahman, cosmic-consciousness: union with all of existence, above all, union with all men in love) - since it shall lead to repression, supression, envy, a mounting sense of injustice etc.
Certainly not without inculcating & perfecting Love within oneself.
Nor is it necessary in the ideal itself, since the perfected man neither needs money nor sex in any fundamental way, to achieve a sense of completion - and is not going to covet, lie, cheat, manipulate, exploit or plunder anyone else for any material values.
The problem lies in finding the right balance (?) or equlibrium between infinite love of the infinite personality, & enjoyment of mental-emotional-physical life, i.e. the finite individual personality.
So: have private property, earn money, engage in creation & pursuit of material values, enjoy sex, build a family, a personal world of your own: but, underlying all these pursuits, keep growing in a sense of love for all men: keep strengthening the moral sense: I cannot hurt, I cannot cheat, I cannot lie, I cannot disrespect, I cannot cut-throat, I cannot defraud, I cannot manipulate, I can have no fundamental desire to injure or degrade --- ANYBODY.
Whether this is possible or not, is subject for many more years of thought!
The choices (points of conflict) between the two are innumerable, if not constant.
Man's growth has to be towards greater & greater detachment towards private, individual, material values.
Towards a healthy disenchantment with acquisition, accumulation, & possession - and a greater desire to create & produce, but NOT for self-aggrandizement.
(He seeks perfection of his soul through perfection of his love for God & for Man. That is the best within him: that lies beneath the power of the mind & the desire to create, as well as beneath the desire to exist.)
Towards greater & greater tender love for all mankind.
This necessiates renunciation of power & violence.
Only then he becomes more than an individual being, and becomes IMMENSE.

The most important point, however, remains unaddressed: the involvement in socio-political humanitarian activity.
Active love for mankind & a burning desire to obliterate the sufferings of men is another cause for all the misery of mankind, and Tolstoy recognizes this.
I shall take up this point later, and it involves this: trying to grasp the proper nature of the activity through which the self-realized man (of God-consciousness, or expanded consciousness), or the aspiring man, seeks to realize his love for mankind, in action.
THIS is where the principle of Non-violence & non-coercion (or non-Force) is of paramount importance.
This is a very wide subject, and perhaps the most difficult & crucial one!

Whatever I've written in this post are mere thoughts - ramblings, if not speculations.
Have I stated any unshakable convictions? No. I am quite sure I haven't.
Because, there is a lot more to read, a lot more to know, and a lot more to understand!
I shall end this now itself, since the post is long enough. Shall pick up this thread sometime later.

THE MIRACLE WORKER as a Christian work of art

When I used the term "Christian literary work" in my previous post (referring to the play "The Miracle Worker") I used the term in a very specific sense. The word "Christian" did not refer to the Christian doctrine that Jesus Christ was the Son of Jehovah, who was sent to give his blood as payment for the sins of mankind, and that Judas Iscariot betrayed him to the high priests of Jerusalem, and he was crucified, and rose from the sepulcher on the 3rd day, and ascended to Heaven & sat on the right hand side of the throne of his father. I was referring to the original spiritual-moral VALUES, the vision of soul & life which was preached by Jesus, and later by Paul & John the Beloved Disciple.

A more appropriate term would've been: religious literary work.

Unfortunately, modern consciousness has come to a stage where religion is something different from spirituality & mysticism - and all these are different from science, philosophy, & ethics. Fundamentally, all these are ONE united body, malevolently dismembered by the modern, so-called "rational" attitude.

When it comes to the word "religion", I affirm Tolstoy's definition: "True religion is that relationship, in accordance with reason & knowledge, which man establishes with the infinite world around him, and which binds his life to that infinity & binds his own actions." ("What is Religion, Of what does its essence consist?")

And thus, religion is not an aggregate of practices, rituals, regulations, & observations - but a guide for life, which determines how man sees his self (soul-spirit), the universe around him, the purpose & meaning of life & action, and the basic relationship between himself & the rest of existence.

A specifically Christian outlook is one in which men recognize the supreme importance of LOVE between men.

This is not to say that Christianity invented the concept of love between men - whether you call it "Eros" (which, according to certain interpretations, does not mean 'erotic love', but compassion), or "Agape". Christianity certainly did not first uphold compassion, charity, almsgiving, sacrifice, renunciation, or -- to put it simply -- love.

But it was Christianity which, in the western world, for the first time, upheld the idea of universal love & brotherhood, with such strength & sacrifice. The tradition of the Essenes, Therapeutae, & Nazarites seems to have been given a powerful boost by the fire of Jesus & Paul.

Now, why should I call "The Miracle Worker" a Christian play?

The first point to be kept in mind is that Christianity is that stream of spirituality which puts Love directly at the heart of human life.

Hinduism, on the other hand, places achievement of Immortality & Infinity - of a total union with the Source, Essence, & the Whole of Existence - at the heart of life. This union has been called "Moksha", or "Mukti", or "Samadhi". The Buddhist "Nirvana" is the same as "Moksha" or "Mukti" - but Buddhism is more psychological than mystical than the Vedic-Vedantic outlook. These two basic conceptions (of Christianity & Vedantism) are NOT two fundamentally different conceptions: they are inextricably ONE. It's a matter of focus, rather than essence, where the difference comes in.

The end-result & fundamental, underlying idea is the same: a very profound sense of compassion for all men (& by extension, for all life, for the universe as a whole).

A total avoidance of INFLICTING any form of injury or suffering on another being.

And, infact, a desire to reduce the sum-total of individual & collective suffering in the world, or in one's immediate environment.

Empathy, gentleness, tender affection, an enthusiastic & active interest in a being's welfare, a sense of deep-felt kinship - as if the other person were as precious as if related by blood: these were the psychological values affirmed by these streams of spirituality.

There is no reason not to repeat endlessly that the fundamental idea about LOVE is that, in Love, the biological-physical sense of separateness from another being, another entity or existent, is minimized (&, in the ideal, obliterated).

Love - whether Vedantic, or Buddhist, or Christian, or Islamic, or Judaic - is NOT something totally mystical & supernatural & other-worldly. It is wired into our being. It is an indispensable, necessary fragment of our constitution - the unique synthetic composition that Man is.

It exists in Nature, in a ladder that starts in self-preservation, and ends in absolute sacrifice, which I call absolute self-consecration to the cause of the joy of the world.

The more we love someone, or something - the more impossible it is for us to consciously, willfully, carelessly cause it suffering or harm. The more we love someone, the more impossible it is for us to be indifferent to the person's condition, to wish him any injury, to leave him alone in his suffering & loneliness - to exploit him or play around with his emotions.

In a philosophy of Love, a man grasps that the most joyful action in the world - and the highest purpose in a man's life, that imbues his life with genuine value & meaning - (after that of his own growing awareness of the ultimate truth of life, & his own spiritual perfection in love) - is the elevation & illumination of the soul of another human being.

This is the focus, the motive-power, the centruum: that through my action, I drop a ray of light into the soul of another human being, and, if only for a moment, open his/her eyes to love, to God, to perfect union with the All, i.e. to revelation of the ultimate truth of his Self.

I agree that such activity is not possible to all of us - but that's a different point, and has to be developed in its own respect, quite independently of what I'm writing now.

Farmers must farm, a doctor must heal, a teacher must teach, a politician should govern, a judge must dispense justice, an architect must build: but they can LIVE a philosophy of Love in their respective spheres without any fundamental contradiction, and, infact, turn each activity into a perfect expression of Love.

And this is what we see in "The Miracle Worker".

In the struggle of Anne Sullivan and Helen Keller, we see a quintessentially RELIGIOUS struggle: the struggle FOR consciousness.

The struggle for the establishment of a HUMAN consciousness: for without human consciousness, neither knowledge, nor love - neither creativity & productivity, nor sacrifice & renunciation - neither humanity, nor divinity - can be expressed.

The work is neither mystical nor religious either in its aim, or its style -- but the fundamental abstraction involved is emphatically religious. (The name itself reveals the inner significance.)

It is the spectacle of one human being CREATING THE HUMANITY of another human being - making humanness possible - transforming blindness, a shuddering bundle of nerves, fear, hunger, & chaotic anger - into vision (particularly, mental vision), confidence to deal with the world, fearlessness of the unpercievable, clarity, ability to give, understanding, knowledge, peace.

Here, Love is not mere almsgiving, not merely clothing & healing, not just feeding a hungry child - but a deeper phenomenon: making it possible for a human being to THINK.

Making it possible for a human being to live the life of a human being.

By teaching a blind & deaf Helen to understand words - and hence, concepts & ideas - Anne Sullivan makes it possible for Helen to bring ideas, values, purpose, meaning, & achievement into her life. She enables Helen to rise above being a mere animal, and become a human being full of dignity, reason, the power to achieve values, to take further the process of enlightenment.

If this is not CHRISTIAN, than what is?

Does Christian love merely consist in giving away old clothes & shoes, and an occasional cup of money out of an ocean of wealth for some cause which we don't even know anything about?

What is a greater gift than giving a vision of life (which is why I love the film "Titanic" despite its cliched story-background) -- than giving the ability to think, to reason -- the ability to be productive, creative, useful?

To shape an intelligence, to open consciousness to the world of thought & ideas, is perhaps as great a gift, as offering to men a vision of God, of the immortal & the infinite.

And therefore, I do think that William Gibson's play "The Miracle Worker" is an example of one of the highest Christian or religious works of art.

Two jewels, & clarifications

I forgot to add two works which I think could be included in the category of greatest works of art: "Siddhartha" by Hermann Hesse, and a not-so-well-known play called "The Miracle Worker" by William Gibson.

I also forgot to clarify that I've not read "Notes from the House of the Dead" & "Les Pauvres Gens". (Have read the other novels of Dostoevsky & Victor Hugo.)

I emphatically state that Tolstoy's views are not completely & totally my views: I agree with him to a great extent, not 100%

"The Miracle Worker" is a play based on the life of Helen Keller, and it's theme is the struggle of trying to open up the consciousness of a human being to the world of WORDS - and hence, of thoughts, of concepts, of ideas. People might understand ME , or my views, better, if they understand what I mean by saying that THIS - the struggle of Anne Sullivan to pour in the light of words into the blank, dark mind of Helen Keller living in a state of sheer bestiality - the birth of a conceptual consciousness - is perhaps the most beautiful example of a Christian literary work.

Few personal thoughts on literature from a Tolstoyan point of view

Leo Tolstoy names Friedrich Schiller's "The Robbers" ("Die Raubers"); Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables" & "Les Pauvres Gens"; the novels of Fyodor Dostoevsky, especially "Notes from the House of the Dead"; the novels & stories of Charles Dickens, especially "A Tale of Two Cities" & "The Chimes"; "Adam Bede" by George Eliot & "Uncle Tom's Cabin" by Harriet Beecher Stowe - as supreme examples of the greatest works of art - specifically, religious art which flows from man's love of God & of man.
I haven't read "Adam Bede" & "Uncle Tom's Cabin", but I must agree with him as to the others.
I would, however, add "Quo Vadis?" by Henryk Sienkiewicz, "Don Carlos" by Schiller, "Ninety Three" by Hugo, & "The Prophet" by Khalil Gibran.
I would also add "Gitanjali" by Rabindranath Tagore & "Savitri" by Aurobindo Ghosh - but they are poems (or collection of poems).
I don't think "Gitanjali" has the kind of inner, purposeful unity of, say, Gibran's "The Prophet" - though thematic integrity is perfectly maintained.
Tagore's play "The Waterfall" is a gem of a work, and I am irresistibly drawn to his "The Post Office", another short play, which seems to be a work of tremendous promise.
"Savitri" is not a very accessible work of universal appeal. It is too sophisticated, too cerebral, too difficult - and the best quality of all the works extolled by Tolstoy is that they are accessible by the simplest of people, and have an immediate & tremendous emotional impact. They are truly soul-changing without being cerebral (which often means 'pretentious' & 'artificial').
It is true that overly cerebral works - especially an unnecessary obsession with manipulation of style & verbal expression - is merely a cover for scarcity of content, the poverty of imagination, & a desire to stun & awe the reader, a basically unhealthy motivation.
Above all, excess sophistication of technique (& even content) is distracting, and reduces the emotional impact of a work of art, which Tolstoy correctly recognizes, is the PRIMARY point of art: the feeling it evokes in the reader.

I'd also add "The Scarlet Letter" by Nathaniel Hawthorne.
It is the epitome of concentratedness of plot, profound symbolism, and thematic & artistic integrity, besides being a psychological-philosophical novel of the highest order.
However, it had a far, far less PERSONAL, emotional impact on me, than any of Hugo's novels (my personal favorite perhaps, is "Toilers of the Sea"), or those of Dostoevsky & Dickens.
I remember falling in love with some of the fairy-tale like stories of Oscar Wilde, though I really can't quite remember the stories themselves! (Like "The Rose & the Nightingale", "The Happy Prince" etc.)
And then, though not of the order of Schiller, Hugo, or Dostoevsky - the novel "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee was an absolute delight.
"To Kill...", & the tales of Wilde actually fall into the second category of good, true art according to Tolstoy: universal art which unites people through evoking deep emotions which men have felt in all ages & places. I'm not too sure if Tolstoy approved of the works of Wilde: apparently, he didn't like Wilde. (Wilde was one of the Decadents, who, according to Tolstoy represented one of the innumerable groups which were degenerating art.)
But I like them as very touching works with tremendous depth of emotion.
One might also add in this category some of the stories of O. Henry, an extraordinarily brilliant & imaginative genius.

If I haven't mentioned Shakespeare till now, it's because I've read (only) 3 of his plays (King Lear, Macbeth, Julius Caesar) - & I've read them all only once, and haven't been too deep into Shakespeare till now, as such.
Moreover, I think the enormous profundity of his plays - the mind-boggling philosophical sophistication - seems to warrant a greater medium than drama.
Nevertheless, Shakespeare surpasses ALL in artistic expression - in the use of words & language & poetry - and is truly the "Papa" of all.
I don't reject Shakespeare as Tolstoy does, just because his characters don't speak an everyday language. Art is not a literal imitation of life.
I do think that Shakespeare - when READ - does not make the necessary impact on the reader.
Perhaps, one must actually witness a well-made play of his, to appreciate his true worth as a playwright - than just READ it.

But the three plays of Shakespeare, or say, "Faust" by Goethe (of which I've read only the 1st part, and affirm as one of the greatest works of literature) - do not fall into the category of "Les Miserables" or "The Robbers" or "A Tale of Two Cities" or even "Quo Vadis?"
They are too cerebral - and really don't emotionally impact the reader's soul (at least that of yours truly) as a Hugo can.
They do not lack sincerity - far from it - but (perhaps) are too compressed, too A-MORAL, primarily dissecting reality & grasping out for its great hidden truths, than a revelation of the ultimate "ought to"; I don't think they achieved the task of upholding a new, shining IDEAL vision to mankind.
They were essentially REALISTS, while men like Hugo & Dostoevsky were fundamentally IDEALISTS, i.e., passionately & primarily concerned with the transformation & illumination of consciousness, of the regeneration & resurrection of the erring individual, of establishing the highest moral ideal which humanity ought to strive for.

I cannot be too sure of my views, since it's been a long time since I've read most of these books.
I read Schiller's masterpiece "Wallenstein" only once in 2002, and I hardly remember it. So I'm really not in a position to declare unequivocally if it is or isn't a profoundly Christian work of art.
Tolstoy searches for a more openly, directly, powerfully CHRISTIAN vision in his choice of art.
(Not "Roman Catholic" or "Protestant" or "Lutheran" - but pure, authentic, fundamental Christian spiritual values). The expression of - & passionate concern with - man's love for God & for Man.
The primary focus being a MORAL struggle at the heart of the work: choice between a lesser life & higher being.
A work like "Gone with the Wind" (by Margaret Mitchelle) does NOT fall into this category, neither does "Moby Dick" by Hermann Melville.
Nor do the plethore of other novels which I personally (& otherwise) summarily reject as great works of art: "The Great Gatsby" by Fitzgerald, "The Wuthering Heights" by Emily Bronte, "Vanity Fair" by William Makepeace Thackeray, etc etc.
(I admire both Mitchelle & Melville, though not as much as the ones mentioned before. "Moby Dick" suffers from the lack of a proper story & a plot-structure. Thackeray is a brilliant satirist.
A related but not similar case is that of Edgar Allan Poe - a towering genius - but whose works do not have the passionate religious, ethical content of a Hugo or Dostoevsky or Dickens or Schiller.)

Not that these works do not have aesthetic value. Not that they can't be powerful, or "infect" the reader with a certain emotion the author has felt. Infact, they are all novels of ideas.
But do offer to man a vision of the ideal?
Do they reveal the meaning of God to man, and clarify man's relationship with God & his neighbor?
Do they REVEAL to man the meaning, essence, power, & importance of love?
Do they deal with immortality & infinity which is the ultimate metaphysical truth of man?
Is their focus the transformation & birth of a new world of peace & harmony?
Do they express man's deepest & highest religion?
Do they care about man's desperate quest for self-realization in an ever-growing expansion of self in intellectual, creative, moral & spiritual achievement?
Have they opened man's consciousness to a whole new universe of spiritual grandeur?
Can they play any significant role in establishing a universal brotherhood of men in this world, and show men the path to spiritual purification & perfection?
No. Not according to me! Certainly not as yet.
That's why, I too wouldn't consider them to be specimen of the highest works of art.
If the reader of this post seeks to know what I mean by a truly great works of art, read the mystic poems of Aurobindo Ghosh, or "Les Miserables", or "The Brothers Karamazov", or the incomparable Book of Job.

I'm basically on my way towards a deeper understanding of things. That's the whole purpose right now: to understand. To grow with greater comprehension.
I give myself the space to change my views with the growth of my store of information, and my own knowledge.
So while these are my views - and enthusiastically so - I won't say I am absolutely, unchangeably certain of keeping them just as they are.
I've tried to look at some literary works from Tolstoy's point of view - which I am compelled to agree with, to a great extent - and this is just a first attempt to simply state my thoughts on what I've read.
I've really not analyzed any of these works carefully, and am not in a position to do so right now, so what I've written above should be considered keeping in mind this condition.

One of my favorite paintings

Christ Carrying the Cross - by El Greco, 1580 (also known as the "Via Crucis")

One of the most beautiful paintings I've ever seen in my life.

(This image was obtained from Wikimedia Commons.)