nAlO nEnu (Is literature the ultimate? #4)
Prabhakar Vissavajjhala (vissa@cortex.neuro.mssm.edu)
Thu, 12 Jun 1997 20:19:03 -0500
nAlO nEnu
(Is poetry the ultimate regarding the practical reality? #4)
[This is put in the form of a dialogue between 'manassu' (mind) abbreviated
as 'M' and 'buddhi' (conscience) abbreviated as 'B' of the same
individuval.]
M: O.K. But, I have an important and serious question. Is it necessary
that the poet should follow what he/she says? Should one lead by example?
Is that possible or essential on every occasion; especially, while dealing
with the 'practical reality'?
B: As a simple principle, anybody has to follow what one says, especially
when there is a practical signficance for that. Otherwise, there is no
value for truth. Right? But your question is regarding the poet/writer,
who addresses the 'society/ nation ' etc. This has a bearing on the wide
range of audience not he/she alone. So, is it possible for him/her to
implement this in practice at the level he/she saying, especially, while
dealing with the practical reality'? When and if it is not possible,
should he/she stop telling that? Is that what you mean?
M: Exactly.
B: It is absolutely true what a writer/poet/ preacher says is not for
his/her own implementation alone. It is society's/nation's/ human race
itself. So, one can't hold him/her responsible for the entirity of what is
said. But, what is society/nation again? Nothing but the people. So, isn't
the poet/writer/preacher is one of them? Yes, he/she is. So, in turn, in
one's own possible way or means, he/she should do the the bit/ part,
especially, while dealing with the practical reality.
There is a story about this (may be fictitious). While ramakRshNa
paramahaMsa was visiting a place, a lady rushed with her kid and told that
the kid was eating a lot of sugar and asked him to do something to the kid.
He stared at the kid and asked the lady to bring him the next day. She did
so. But he told her again to bring him after a couple of days. So,
hopefully she visited him again. Without postponing anymore, that day he
took the kid close and chatted with him for a while and told him that he
should oblige his mother and should quit eating sugar and made the kid nod
his (kid's) head in agreement, for whatever worth it may be. Then he asked
the lady to take the kid away. The lady was amazed and got confused as she
was anticipating some 'mantra' or miracle from him. To confirm, she asked
whether that was all. He said , yes. She felt so frustrated that she
angrily asked, if that was all why he couldn't tell the same on the first
day and made her come time and again. Then he said that he too had the same
problem of eating sugar fondly, so he didn't feel justified to advise the
kid to quit it. As it took three days for himself to quit that habit, he
could tell the kid that day. That is why he had to make her come time and
again, for which he sincerely apologized.
Indeed, all the genuine people, inspite of a bearing on the wide range of
audience of what they are saying, do put it in practice at personal
(individual) level* without fail*. Indeed, you can say the converse is also
true i.e., those who don't implement at personal level, even when capable
of are not genuine.
M: Can you quote some examples?
B: Obviously, I don't know many. But I try. 'buddha' (500s B.C.) not a
poet but a preacher said (not in telugu) at a very high and fundamental
level that is applicable to anybody at anytime that ' kOrikalE
du@hkhamunaku mUla kAraNamu'. With a highly focussed effort, he
literally explored it. He was simply impeccable and sincere about it and is
true to his word in practice. Inspite of being a married man with a kid, he
observed utmost principled life after he became 'buddha'. Similarly,
annamayya (14th century A.D.), a great devotee of Lord venkaTESa refused to
oblige writing poetry/song about his king on the same lines as the Lord,
and got jailed too. But didn't yield to the situation against his
conscience. Again, pOtana (15th century A.D.) dismissed the thought of
dedicating his poetry to the kings and said,
'bAla rasAla sAla nava pallava kOmala kAvya kanyakan
kULala kicci, appaDupu kUDu bhujincuTa kanna satkavul
hAliku laina nEmi?' ..................................
He literally took the plough and cultivated the land to grow his own
grains. Though it is not applauded by all, contrary to the above ones,
vEmana (17th/18th century A.D.)reahed such philosophical heights that are
unparallel and uncommon for many could say,
talli garbhamandu tagulu konnadi gAdu
veLLi pOyE nADu venTa rAdu
naDuma baTTa kaTTa nagubATu kAdayA?!
and disrobed himself.
M: I have a question. The poem looks true. But somehow, again it is
unacceptable. Why is this? What do you think of 'truth'?
B: Not now. Some other time. Let me continue.
'tyAgarAja' (18th/19th century)truly questioned himself 'nidhi cAla
sukhamA? rAmuni sannidhi sEva sukhamA? This is not just a part of his
musical and literary talent. He truly and practically opted for the latter
and refused king SarabhOji and turned down the offer for courtsinger. We
can't say for sure how much bearing these have on those societies and
times, but they prove that the individuval did implement what he
said/felt.
People say 'gAndhi' practised what he preached. He is not a poet, but a
truthful explorer what he said and did. He is one, who transformed himself
to the workman status practically at the 4th category level also.
M: What about "Sree Sree'?
B: 'Sree Sree' vehemently opposed 'capitalism' (peTTubaDi dAree
vargamu), and all his poetry is directed against it and the people who
exploit the poor and urging the poor and down trodden to fight for their
genuine rights tooth and nail. This developed a tremendous turn in the
lives of the exploited. It opened a new era in telugu literature. In his
own words he said about himself (translation to the closest): 'I want to
show my life as an example of standing against 'capitalism'. I fight this
till my end'. He proved what he said at an individual level up to the end
of his life in a hard core fashion.
M: So, doesn't 'Sree Sree' belong to the 4th category of your story then?
B: No.
M: Why?
B: Did you remember what 'Sree Sree' himself admitted in one of his
essays, reacting to some the questions of the press reporters?
M: On what occasion?
B: Following his contribution for ANR/Adurti's 'marO prapancam' movie. It
seems the press reporters asked him how he felt for the gAndhian type of
solution for the problems of 'caste' and 'religion' in that movie. He said
'We are poets, artists. We suggest many things and many ways to solve a
problem. But for the problems we are dealing, I feel the solution should
come at political level.' Look ! the genuine people do know where they
stand. They don't overplay their role and make too much about themselves.
This is the whole point I am trying to tell you that when it comes to deal
with the 'prctical reality', poetry/literature is not the ultimate. It is
the 4th category people that are important who meet the situation in
action.
M: Then who are those 4th category people you talk about? You said
'gAndhi', who else? What did they do in action?
(to be continued)
With regards,
Prabhakar Vissavajjhala