What is 'chandassu'? How is it framed? (confining to telugu language only)
'chandassu' may be described as the one that designs the structural
features of 'poetry'.
If so what is 'poetry'?
Poetry may be described as the 'mobilizing literature while itself keeps
moving'. (kadalutoo, kadalincE saahityamE kavitvamu).
Doesn't 'prose' move? Can't it mobilize?
Sure it does. But, certainly not as gracefully, appealingly, memorably and
aesthetically as 'poetry' does as everyone knows. It is easy to feel rather
than to explain.
What makes this difference? Is it 'chandassu'?
'chandassu' only deals with the structural features of poetry. To be very
specific it generates the 'rythm' of the 'literature' only. [Please ignore
the term 'rhyme'in this context. Strictly speaking, 'rhyme' should be
considered in figures of speeches (precisely, Sabdaalankaaraas) but not in
'chandassu'.] 'chandassu' should not be misunderstood as the representation
of 'poetry' as many people tend to do so. chandassu is only a definable
aspect of many definable and indefinable aspects of poetry.
Why is 'rythm' so important for 'poetry'? Does that bring the initial
beauty to 'literature'? Can't things exist without 'rythm' and still be
beautiful?
I wish people may not ask this question. For, the very existance of the
universe itself is due to the 'rythmic' motion of the planets around the
Sun. By the very rythmic rotation around itself and the Sun, the earth is
resulting in the distinction of time into days, nights and years. If this
rythm in the universe is absent/disturbed for any reason, the world may not
make any sense. Even humans, for that matter all the living beings do keep
maintaining rythms during the daily life as well as the life span (which
are 'bilogical rythms'). Apparently, everything in the universe is rythmic,
either in recognizable or unrecognizable manner. Coming to 'literature',
even 'prose' is rythmic in an invisible manner due to grammar, without
which a sentence becomes a haphazardous collection of words, which doesn't
make any sense. However, this 'rythm' being very essential (sense-making
oriented) is never considered as a 'rythm' at all. Probably, 'chandassu'
may be described as a recognizable 'rythm' that is atributed to
'literature'.
In essence, one can say one doesn't like a 'rythm' in particular, and it is
unwise to say that rythm is unnecessary.
Humans perceive information through the five 'senses' (vision, hearing,
smell, taste and touch), which are assimilated by brain ultimately. It is
often said that 'sarvEndriyaaNaam nayanam pradhaanam' (eye/vision is the
best of all the senses.) However, there is nothing in the 'literature' to
please the physical 'eye'. Literature is fundamentally perceived by
listening or reading, where the 'ear' and subsequently the 'mind' play
critical roles in understanding/appreciating it. Probably, due to
inevitable situations in the past, where recitation was essential because
of the lack of printing and copying facilities, it was more essential to
make 'literature' more appealing by 'physical means'. So, as a matter of
preliminary attraction, the strikingly rythmic patterns that aid the
'literature' are often very successful in catching the ears of the common
public. As the 'rythmic literature' sounds like music, it can drag the
attention of even the uninterested or the disinterested also at times and
makes it long lasting in the minds too. However, a truly sensible,
inquisitive, attentive, dedicated and probing soul always grasps the
message equally from a non/less rythmic and a more rythmic literature in
the same manner. Poetry, obviously, being much more than mere chandassu, as
a matter of fact, with all its visibly flowing flair often stayed
above'prose'in its appealing nature. (to be
continued)
With regards,
Prabhakar Vissavajjhala