[laakshNikaas revisited: This is not meant to rekindle flames.
I hope, we can have a good exchange on the relevance and
applicability of the laakshNika methodology to Sree Sree
in particular, and to modern Indian poetry, in general.]
Eversince, Sree Madhav Turumella gaaru has posted his reasons
to refuse to accept Sree Sree as mahaakavi, I have been mulling
over his arguments and my would-have-been reply. But, the entire
discussion on that subject, at that time, took a very different
twist! (I might have been one of the culprits, for such a twist!
What more can I add!!)
Now that it is almost a month old, the suffocating dust must have
settled, and I sincerely hope we can discuss Sri Turumella gaari
objections more at an academic level, than at an emotional level.
Any way, on a quiet day, I felt that we all can hear very well, even
from far far away. Hence this belated post!)
Sree Madhav Turumella's primary objection is based on the highly
revered rules set by the laakshaNikaas and their rasa theories.
When he was refering to an 'unacceptable' emotion portrayed by
Sree Sree, and the incompatiblity of certain rasaas and
the recipes, I think, he has the great ninth century kaashmeeri
aesthetist Anandavardhana and his magnum opus, dhvanyaalOka definitely
in mind. After all, it was the first and foremost strict "rules"
text on aesthetics.
True. The Indian literary critics trained in the traditional
fashion, consider that certain emotional states are incompatible with
others. For example, dhvanyaalOkaM insists that love and sadness
should not be spoken together. But, such strict rules are usually
'broken,' and broken by poets of great repute. Ironically enough,
such poems which break these strict rules of monotony, become classic
examples of great poetry. Surprisingly, such works are quoted by the
aesthetists, and Anandavardhana was no exception!!
Let me give an example:
The following is by vEda vyaasa from his mahaabhaarata(XI.24.19).
ayaM sa rasanOtkarshee peenastana-vimardhanah
naabh-yuru-jaghana-sparsee neevee visraMsanah karah.
tr: This is the hand that used to remove my belt
That would fondle my large breasts
That touched my navel, my thighs
And what lies between the thighs.
This is the hand that untied the knot that held up my sari.
This is the scenario for the poem: The great bhaarata war is over.
Shooting location: The battle field. The scene: The dead husband's
hand is severed from his body that is lying on the field. The wife
is lamenting!
aalaMkaarikaa's objection:
Here sexuality and death are comingled in the poem! It is a no, no!
But, who has the guts to deny Mr. vEda vYaas! So, Anandavardhana
cites this in dhvanyaalOka, although the poem violates his strict
rules! Why? One: He considers this as a great poem. Two: Probably
much more relevant reason is that it would be blashphemous to point
fingers at Mr. vEda vyaasa's poetry!
[How did mahaakavi tikkana fare in translating or transcreating this
part? Take it as home work, read the stree parva and see if he
had guts to violate the canons of the ancient aesthetist!]
We can search and cite several examples that violate the strict rules.
For instance, from kaavyaprakaaSa of Mammatha, or subhaashitaavaLi
of vallabhadEva, or karNaamruta of leelaasuka, etc.
One more for the road:
This is from mahaakavi kaalidaasa's kumaarasaMbhavaM.
samadiva sanisheethaM saNginas tatra SambhOh
SataM agamad RtoonaaM saardham ekaa niSeva
na sa surata-sukhebhyaS chinnatRshNo babhoova
jvalana iva samudra-antargatas tajjalaughaih
tr: Attached to his beloved
Day and night Siva made love
One hundred fifty seasons - a single night!
He never tired of sexual pleasure
The fire hidden deep in the ocean
Too never tires of its pouring waters.
Wow! What can we say! This poem is about our god and goddess
and strictly their love life, vividly(!) described by the
greatest of the poets! Should we deny kaalidaasa the right to
be called a mahaakavi, because of the soft porno hint above?
Certainly not!
Anandavardhana speaks in his book elsewhere, of the older poets,
who were unencumbered by formal rules, but carefully warns the
'modern' poet against imitating the great ones! After all, those
who ape the great ones, are usually of mediocre talents!
And, the great laakshanikaa knows it too well!
Moral: If you can't beat them, join them!
My two red cents:
The next edition of the book on 'aesthetics,'say, the aaMdhra
dhvanyaalOka, or something like that, must make room for
Sree Sree's and Bhairavayya's poems. I don't care if they are
cited as examples violating the strict archaic rules of
aanadavardhana. But, the common sense road rule of left turn
(or the 'right' turn, if it's India!) etched in Capital letters:
CAUTION. STOP. SEE BOTH SIDES AND TURN LEFT (OR 'RIGHT').
Or isn't there some 'how-to-book' that is getting cooked up here?
Or that was agreed upon to be cooked? I think, I have seen
something like that, while I was doing my homework to participate
in the poll, the poll I have missed, last month!!
Well! I hope they would seriously consider my free red cent!!
Regards.
- Venkateswara Rao Veluri
ps: After all, isn't it TSE that said something like this:
'that classics must be rewritten form time to time!'
--vrv
pps: The verses and translations were shamelessly lifted by me
from Sanskrit Love Poetry by W.S. Merwin and J. M. Masson (1977).
---vrv