On Tue, 16 Apr 1996, K. Sadananda wrote:
> It is time to get back to some moving poetry. Frankly for the past two months I
> been immensely getting bored with telusa's endless discussions about Sri Sri
> and then what makes something mahaakaavyamulu. No flames please - this is
> strictly my opinion.
>
As one of the participants in those endless discussions about SreeSree,
mahaakaavyamulu, and various other threads, I deeply regret that Sri
Sadananda was immensely getting bored with them. As I previously said on this
forum, I thoroughly enjoyed those discussions and am looking forward to more
of such discussions.
As far as 'moving poetry' goes, I was enjoying the many pieces of
poetry posted in this forum during the last couple of months. Once again, I am
sorry that Sri Sadananda was not enjoying them.
On the other hand, I suppose that Sadananda gaaru was not bored during
the period before these discussions when it seemed like Telusa seemed to have
nothing but samasyaapooraNas (at least that's what it seemed like to me
those days; strictly personal perception). I was getting immensely bored
(nad regretful too) those days.
Obviously, our interests are different. I certainly hope that
there is room for my interests in this forum.
> What makes a mahakaavyamu - in the final analysis, the time will tell.
I am unsure as to when this final analysis can be done, if ever. What
time will tell about what is a mahaakaavyamu is immaterial to me as I plan to
be around for only a limited time. I don't think it matters to SreeSree
or Sreekrishna dEvaraaya either; they are already dead.
> Those who belief it is already time for Sri Sri to be characterized as mahakavi
> - so be it - that also will be time tested.
I regret to say that I find this to be a condescending remark (again
a personal opinion) towards those that believe SreeSree is a mahaakavi.
Those that believe SreeSree (or any other poet) to be a mahaakavi do not
need anybody's sanction or conditional agreement or condescension to do so.
Sadananda gaaru previously said that he is not familiar with SreeSree's
work (or much of Telugu poetry, particularly the modern variety).
Yet, this is the second time he makes a remark in TELUSA which can be
interpreted as being condescending and skeptical of greatness of
SreeSree's poetry. If Sadananda gaaru read SreeSree and didn't like it,
I can understand such remarks. If he says that he does not think SreeSree
is a great poet because he believes in lakshaNa Saastra or chandObaddha
kavitvam (or hates marxism) and heard that SreeSree's poetry doesn't
fit such standards, I can understand that too. However, it is difficult
for me to appreciate why Sadananda gaaru, who hasn't read SreeSree and is
bored by discussions about SreeSree and about what makes a mahaakavi,
continues to express his opinions on this topic without explaining why he
is saying what he is saying. Such remarks will only elicit responses like
mine that will not only continue the discussions about SreeSree and what
makes a mahaakaavyamu, but are certain to take it into realms that seem to
distress a good friend.
Regards. --- V. Chowdary Jampala
PS: Incidentally, as I recall the history of this debate about
SreeSree being a mahaakavi, it did not start with a SreeSree fan
trying to establish him as such. It is also not the SreeSree fans that
brought in the lakshaNa Saastra, the value of marxism, or personal
attributes of SreeSree into this discussion.