Also sometime back, Sri Pillalamarri RamaKrishna gaaru pointed out, if not
suitable always, there seemed to be some 'methods' of 'samasyApUraNas'
could be observed.
This is quite true. In my high school days, I heard from my 'Telugu
teacher' that 'the figures of speach' (alamkAramulu) came out of
'spontaenity'. Later on the analysts - called 'lAkshaNIkulu', classified
them into various 'figures of speach', which set a trend for the people to
follow. So, it is obvious, over a period of time, any practice would be
analyzed for specific 'criteria' to make it more accessible to many. This
is quite common in any walk of life and 'very unfortunately', 'literature'
is no exception. This is how a formula-oriented creations (so-called
creations) have come out later on to compete with and subsequently reduce
the glory of really 'novel' ones, amidst of all those stereo-typed ones.
For the present context, I confine myself to the 'samasyApUraNas'. The
setting of 'samasyAs' and the 'pUranas' sometimes look to be similar over a
period of time.
For eg. the very popular one and highly incoherent 'samasya'
'raadhEyuDu nandi nekki raavaNu gUlcen'
As one can observe, the 'people' or the 'events' that are put together to
create the 'samasya' belong to different 'eras'. It is just impossible to
go for a 'pUraNa' as they mean, if one really takes the popular 'names and
characters' that are meant in there. Though one can use 'SlEsha' (different
meaning), it may not be possible on all the occasions.
So, here is the 'standard method of pUraNa' for such extremely complicated
ones. People used to pose different questions in the first three lines of
the poem and fit the fourth line (incoherent sequence of people or events)
as the answers for the questions in a row.
yOdhudevaDu kurubalamuna
Maadhava sakhuDEmiyekki mari tirugaaDun,
Saadhinche ramuDevvani,
raadheyudu, nandinekki, raavaNu gUlcen.
No doubt, on the very first occasion, this must have been a great success
and very charming too. However, over a period of time, when it became a
'technique/method', it lost its 'charm'. Similarly, 'one from recent
ongoing 'sahasrAvadhAnam'
'kuntini koppu paTTukoni koTTe vidhAsyuDu, gAndhi navvagan'
One may have to follow the above method, for this highly 'incoherent events
and people' involved in there too. May be this is the reason why people set
a formality of asking the 'samasya setter' also to finally make the
'pUraNa', probably to see how much of 'justice' he or she can do. It is
always nice to see some 'novel' and naturally possible 'pUraNas', which fit
in all or almost all the complications in there as they mean, which is
obviously above the 'formula'. Such a scope may not be provided all the
time in the 'samasya' itself or one's ability may not be sufficient either.
Here is one such 'pUraNa'. I feel I am lucky enough (rather than talented)
to make it possible within my limited ability. This is also from the recent
'sahasrAvadhAnam'
'carciki sandhyavArcuTaku sAhebu vaccenu satvarambugan'
Anybody could guess the complication of mixing 'three religious aspects
together'. If we apply the 'standardized method', it could go like this:
arcana sEya kraistava matastulu yEguna dikkadEga, ra
vyArcanakai trikaalamula haindava sanghamu jUcu, daivamun
gUrci maseedu nandunanu prAdhana jEyaga vaccenevvaDO
'carciki, sandhyavArcuTaku, sAhebu vaccenu satvarambugan'
However, fitting in almost all the complications as they appear in the
'samasya', here is another 'pUraNa':
arcanasEya daivamunu prEyasi mEriyu vaccunancu, san
darcana kaamksha tODa yabhimaanamu meeraga yUsafunDu, yE
maarcucu mitrulan, yudaya vELa nireekshaNa sEyanenci, taa
carciki sandhyavArcuTaku sAhebu vaccenu satvarambugan'
(Similarly, 'splitting' the word accordingly to make a 'pUraNa' possible
for a complicated 'samasya' is another 'standardized way'.)
(For the sake of numerical follow up, this may be samasyApUrana #8)
With regards, Prabhakar Vissavajjhala