Quite honestly but not modestly, my knowledge of Telugu literature is just
little bit more than my high school lessons, which I got thouroughly well
though, during 1967-72. Even in that 'more', I never happened to read/study
any 'lakshaNa' grandha either. However, having come across some bits and
pieces now and then, I feel a bit justified to address this. (These are
just my opinions only. Sure they are 'firm' but not 'rigid'. So, they could
be modified. Whether they throw some 'light' or not, certainly they do not
have any 'heat'. Just now saw Sri Seetaaramaiah and Nasy gaari's posts
before clicking the 'send' button. I think some of those aspects I too
addressed. Sorry for the lengthy post. So, I split it into three parts.)
I clearly remember my Telugu teacher telling that most of the
'laakshNikaas' happened to list the 'lakshaNas' (not chandassu) of the
poetry, after some great literary works had already been established. On
the other hand, I heard that 'vaalmeeki' is considered as 'saMskRta
aadikavi'. So, was there any 'lakshaNa grandha' did 'vaalmeeki' follow to
satify or as a 'rule book'? Certainly, I guess there wasn't anyone. He did
not follow a 'rule book' does not mean, he did not have any 'rules' at all
in his poetry. He must have set the rules/standards for himself (as he was
considered 'aadikavi'). So, it is imperative that 'great poets' or
'trend-setting poets' can set rules for themselves, which at times may be a
few deviations of the 'existing ones', if there are any by that time. Of
course, the converse is not necessarily be true.
When and how people write?
Intense focus and involvement as a response for something that draws the
attention of both heart and mind, associated with an elegant and sharp but
broad perspective may make an individual visualize/ feel much greater
details than an average person in that one got involved. If that individual
brings out such feelings in any 'perceivable' form (painting, music,
literature etc.) for the other contemporaries to make them feel the same
may be called an 'artist'. Probably, 'how much of an impact' it made
determines the degree of the 'adjective'. However, it is always interesting
to know what determines that 'impact'. In my view, it is first 'what is
focussed' and 'how relevant it is to the contemporary times', so that
others can also appreciate it. Probably, the second one 'is how elegant and
sharp the observation (ultimately reflected in its disposition)', which
distinguishes that individual from the rest for the variety, if the
focussed items are similar. The third and the major one is 'the broad
perspective'. In my view, the intense feelings the individual generates
will be scrutinized within oneself based on one's own 'knowledge' and
'broad-perspective'. His/her observations/feelings would be verified for
their 'authenticity and appropriateness' against their 'universal
applicability' in an unbiased fashion, i.e., 'samagradarSana or
avagaahana'. This would be reflected in the depth and maturity of the
expression, which distinguishes an extraordinary one from an ordinary one.
As far as 'literature' is concerned, such expressions may remain as
'quotations' for ages to come, indicating their 'universal applicability
and acceptability'.
In my view, the first and third aspects together will determine the
'applicability and the durability' of a literary work (Now, I am confining
to literature only). 'ramayaNa' and 'mahaabhaarata', whether believed to be
real or not, stand as great examples for this reason. I honestly feel these
were considered as great epics certainly, not for their poetic beauty. I do
not think many people really know much about that aspect except for a very
few. Indeed, most of us must have read only someone's 'vacanam' of these. A
very few may know the telugu poems. Probably, one can count those read the
original 'SlOkas' of 'vaalmeeki and vyaasa' on finger tips. Please note
that 'raamayaNa and mahaabhaarata' are 'remembered more than 'vaalmeeki and
vyaasa' their writers. So, how did they become 'great'? ramayaNa' for its
ideals and ethical aspects, which everyone dreams of; and 'mahaabhaarata'
for its 'wiles and guiles of people, playing strategies while fulfilling
their ambitions' did have universal application even in modern times. No
wonder, unfortunately, when ideals and ethics are being proved to be
ineffective in contemporary life, 'ramayaNa' like works which teach them
come under severe criticism. On the contrary, 'mahaabhaarata' is still
applicable for the present day trends. In spite of his reputation as
'anti-traditionalist', Sree Sree himself said that he can not believe
'raamaayaNa' but can believe 'mahabhaarata' (Probably, not in the exact way
it is written, but for its content.) The reason could be very simple as one
can come across such 'characters' in the present day life (a diplomat and
strategist like 'kRshNa', an ambitious sly like 'duryOdhana', a thoughtless
but truthfully emotional one like 'bheema', a sober and balanced one like
'yudhistira' and a highly capable but speculating one at the nick of the
moment like 'arjuna' are a few to mention.) The only pity is people
approach these epics with mythological devotion rather than from an
analytical point and so as their critics too. They tend to focus their
criticism at ridiculing these devotees rather than elucidating the
'characters' from a contemporary perspective. I guess the 'universal
applicability' made these epics 'great' and then only the writers were
assigned the title 'mahaakavulu', but not the other way round.
The second aspect of 'sharp observation and its disposition' is unique for
an individual and brings the fans as well as critics irrespective of the
topic. This deals with 'variety and creation'. This also allows the
individual to use /display one's scholarly excellance. I think this aspect
may distinguish a 'kavi' from a 'panDita kavi'. Though both of them can be
creative, the 'kavi' maintains simplicity in 'disposition', whereas the
'panDita kavi' goes for 'exuberance'. (After all every professional tries
to excel the contemporary rival in every profession. Don't they? If writing
is also considered as a profession, it is no exception). At times, the
'disposition', I believe got confined to the 'specialists', 'aesthetists',
'laakshaNikaas' 'knowledgeables' etc. but not for the common man. If one
has the quest or apptitude for them, one has to raise one's own level of
knowledge to catch them.
Apart from 'raamaayaNa and mahaabhaarata', there happened to be other great
literary works called 'mahaakaavyaas' (In Telugu they are five:
manucaritra, vasucaritra, aamuktamaalyada, paanDuranga mahaatymam, and
SRngaara naishadham'). Certainly, most of these showed limited
applicability, when compared to 'raamaayaNa' and 'mahaabhaarata' and
confined to the 'second aspect' and thereby got limited to the learned
people. Please note that 'aandhra mahaabhaaratam' was not among them.
Certainly, not because it was a translation, as 'SRngaara naishadham' is a
translation. (and probably, 'aamuktamaalyada' is also a translation
from'vishNucitteyamu'.) (to be continued)
With regards,
Prabhakar