It would be superfluous to collect pro-vedic passages. The vedas
are the foundation of the whole of sanskrit literature. But the
triumph of the vedic school is apparant from the fact alone that
all the anti-vedic systems have either perished, or been
driven into exile, or been reduced to insignificance.
Accepting the fact that Sanskrit literature is having its origin
in vedas, we have to understand that literature carried all
its aspects from vedas. Unbelievably, there is no restriction
about individual ideas (e.g.. how one should think and how one
should act etc..). Everyone is given equal chance to raise their
voice and write what they feel. Otherwise the statements which
bluntly controdict the vadic rituals would not have taken place
in veda itself.
paSuScEmnihitaH svargaM jyOtishTOmE gamishyati |
svapitE yajamAnEna tatra kasmAnnahiMsyatE ||
- Yajurveda
If a beast, slain in the Jyotistoma sacrifice goes to
heaven, why then, does not the sacrificer kill his own father ?
These type of controvertial statements are welcomed by vedic
schools. No punch-on-nose business here. If one wants to explain
Sringara he is welcomed.. mind you, those who are interested in it
only will gather there. It is the internal attraction a human has
towards the object. Can we imagine a teetotaller going and sitting
in a liquor bar?
Reading habits and literature depends on individual to individual.
According to their taste they read the respective literature.
Somehow I do not agree with the point that only in bhakti literature
individual is allowed to engage in literature activity with out
moral condemnation. Everywhere in our literature the individual is
given freedom to write what he feels. Is that not so!
Infact we lost a lot of data. We have no such proof that earlier
moral restrictions were put on literature. We know that the
great poets mAgha and bhAravi wrote more than what is now
available to us. It is the people carried their literature
what they are interested in. So it will become injustice to
come for the conclusion, with limited data, in any way.
I think.., It is not true that literature in India deals not
with reality but with archetypes models and examples that can
be used for experience and conduct.
It is the individual with out controdiction accepting his own
aspects. When I have Sringara interest in me I might as well write
a bhOgini daMDaka. And who is going to read it will be decided by
the reader alone. If I have philosophical ideas, too,
in me I may write a sringara+vedanta mixed book.
I think we should not presume that only in Bhakti literature
Sringara is allowed, hence jayadEva has written asthapadis.
==========
PLEASE ALLOW ME TO TAKE A FEW POINTS AND DISCUSS FROM SRI
VELIRI RAO'S ARTICLE :
> Interestingly enough, bhakti literature does not set any archetypes;
> rather it violates them. It is only here that an Indian writer can emerge
> in his own personality. Violation of social norms and violently
> contrasting emotions are allowed to fall together.
As I discussed earlier, the individual is given full freedom to express.
BTW, I never heard that Bhartruhari subhashitas fall into Bhakti Literature
catagory. Thanks for telling that.
> that one can not hope to be either moral or aesthetic; one can only
> struggle. That is a subtle message.
Yes! but it never conveys that by bhakti you can violate something.
rather I think there is not such term called violation.
> In Gita, examples of violation of
> conduct by archetypes can be found. Arjuna's killing of his relatives
> in battle through an argument based on bhakti, is a familiar example.
I think., Gita is told at a higher level of consciousness.
There arjuna is not at all a bhakta...if I am not mistaken
Arjuna was shown as a confused individual. There argument was
not based on bhakti. There Arjuna even goes further to scold krishna
with, what we call as, not-so-good words.
vyAmisrENEva vAkyEna buddhiM mOhayaseevamE
tadEkaM vada niscitya yEna srEyOhavApnuyAM ||
Krishna, I am confused with your double statements (misleading
statements), tell me only one which does good to me.
(vyAmiSrENa vAkyamulu = reMDumATalu ceppaDam, lEdA, okkamATA
sariggA ardhaM kAkuMDA ceppaDaM)
Why, then, Arjuna argued that Krishna is confusing him? This is
in strict controry to the Naradabhaktisutra, the text in which
Bhakti is defined. "sA ahaMkAra dvEshitvAt daina priyatVAcca"
God does not like he who controdicts him with ego (sure,
Arjuna's ego is visible at this statement).
It is left to the decision of Arjuna whether to fight or not.
Krishna never compelled him for battle. After teaching the
whole Geeta Krishna said "yadEchhasi tadhA kuru" means
"Arjuna do what ever you feel". Arjuna decided to fight.
>Hart cites the Tamil story of Ciruttontar, who kills
>his son and feeds
I accept they are bizarre stories.., for one who is having high moral
standards. But, if we go to the remote areas of our AP or Tamilnadu
we find more bizzare stories. I read all our puraNAs except our
matsya purana Some how I could not finish it.. in pure telugu,
one can easily identify such purana as "bUtula buMga". It is
from that purANa bizarre stories have come. e.g Brahma wanted to
seduce his daughter, siva punished him.
I just wanted to tell you that bizzare stories are not new for
our literature., they are coming down from our epics.
> Raama of Raamaayana does not fit any archetypes. He cheats in killing
> Vaali, he is distraught when Sita is taken by Raavana.
1)
Ramayana is a kavya, rather, it is a true story of an individual.
An individual suffered like anyone else in common world.
I must say he never cheated Vaali.. vaali questions
Rama about this. He asks "Rama, how could you kill me by
hiding behind a tree, is it not cheating ?". Rama replies
"dear vali, you are an animal and I am a king, it is said
that a king can hunt any animal., hence I killed you from
behind a tree". Then vali again questions "Rama, I am not
an animal I am a king. You are also a king and you should
not have cheated me". Rama says "Yes! vali even though
you are a king you have cheated your brother a cheater
always deserves cheating... both the ways you are deserved
for killing that is why I shot you".
Valmiki when designing this "valivadha" must have thaught
of archetype., we can find this out in Rama answering.
This strictly follows "parasara smRUti" the oldest moral
code available to us.
> anything, a realm denied to anyone but the greatest bhakta. Same is the
> case with Krishna, the seducer of the wives of the cowherds. He does not
> fit any archetype.
No one led the painful life just like krishna. Krishna as I understood
never seduced cowherds wives.. he was 6 years old when the "rAsaleela"
was performed, and he left gOkulaM at the age of 8 and never in his
life he returned there. There is no such instance we can see in his life
where he does not fit any archetype.
> When Arjuna drops his bow and arrows, Krishna of
> Gita seems distant, even though we are compelled to love him and identify
> with him. This is a great paradox of bhakti: that the deity is beyond
> human understanding, yet we are supposed to be emotionally involved with
What else one can do when the other is emotionally outbursting. If you
were in Krishna's shoes you would also have watched in the same way.
It is very easy to understand Krishna's position at that time. Krishna
lived like a human and died like a human. I must say he happly
undergone rather a painful death.
Krishna in his teaching taught the highest philosophy that is the
non-dualism. It is not that krishna denied bhakti but he has given
not much importance to bhakti. We can find out by reading the
2nd stanza of the 12th chapter of Geeta.
> sringaaram in bhakti poetry need not be looked upon as patently
> 'tasteless,' 'dirty,' or even 'hypocritical.' After all, if your half of
> the 'supply' is different, then the result is different.
Yes! how true.., sringaaram in any poetry, in my opinion, need not
be lookd upon as tasteless, dirty etc..
regards
-Madhava