Re: neo-laakshaNika grandha

Ramakrishna S. Pillalamarri (pkrishna@ARL.MIL)
Mon, 16 Jun 1997 15:28:12 -0600 

At 14:22 6/5/97, V. Chowdary Jampala wrote:
(in response to bachOTi Sridhara raavu's neo-laakshaNika grandha):

>lakshaNa Saastras for most of today's poets are not the same as the old ones

Perhaps. No. Obviously. (Actually, I am not sure!)
There are some things that remain the same over years, over ages. The love
of a mother for her children might be one such. And some things essentially
remain the same, though with slight changes in details. A broad statement
such as a "poetry should uplift people" might not need any modifications
with time.

>SreeSree himself has been the modern laakshaNika: 'navakavita', 'RUkkulu'
>'pratiJna', 'nEnu saitam', and 'kavitaa O kavitaa' define the new
>lakshaNas.

While they may, that is an adhoc compilation at best. I am not sure
SreeSree himself set about to "define" the new lakshaNas in these poems. In
any case, I wonder if someone subsequently attempted to codify these into a
"new/neo lakshaNa sUtras", albeit using a less grAndhikampu word.

Moreover, do the "new generations of poets. digambara kavulu,
viplavakavulu, kavisEna, the editors of neelimEghaalu and chikkanavvutunna
paaTa", etc accept even the notion of some "lakshaNa sUtras", because that
represents a concession to some "top-down" structure on their essentially
free nature? How is Prof cEkUri rAmArAv's thesis that "niyama raahityamE
vacana padya lakshaNam" reconciled with a set of "new lakshaNas"? Or is
this process still evolving, with no broadly acceptable standard yet
achieved? (I confess total ignorance to the poetry of the above poets, some
out of lack of aptitude, some because of the lack of sufficient intestinal
fortitude, and some because of lack of access, and no over-whelming desire
for such an access)

Recently I came across a reference to a poem, by dhUrjaTi. In the preface
to his novel, the author says:

        "mahA purushullAgE, mahAkavulu E koddimandO unTAru. vArilO dhUrjaTi
oka mahAkavi ani nA abhiprAyam. ee nE rAsina inTi gurinci viSEshAlu Ayana
kreestu Sakam padahArO SatAbdamlO ceppEDu. paristhiti appatikee ippaTikee
okkalAgE ondi.

       "jAtul seppuTa, sEva sEyuTa, mRshal sandhincuT-anyAya vikh-
        yAtin bonduTa, konDekADaguTa, himsa-arambhakunDouTa, mith-
        yA tAtparyamu lADuTanniyu bara-dravyambu nASinci; yee
        Sree tAnenni yugambu-lunDagaladO, Sree kALahasteeSwarA!"

ee sAhitya prapancamlO muggurO, nalugurO, ayidugurO mAtramE mahAkavulu
unnAru - annadi evaru? (I think that was wrt poets in the dead language).
kALidAsa wondered that he, though an ignoramus, is yearning for being
called a "kavi"! (gross paraphrasing, don't have any books at hand. The old
memory is ...)

>Those that want to adhere to danDin are welcome to do so.

It is all too clear that the new rules wouldn't welcome poetry of danDin's
taste. I wonder how JVC happened to pick him, out of the dead poet society.
In the couplet that mentions kALidAsa's penchant for upmA, danDi is
credited with  (a weakness for-?) "pada lAlityam". It is obvious that the
NGP-s wouldn't touch that feature with a ten-foot pole. Or is it
bhAva-lAlityam that they shun? Or both?

>Our rule books are different; if somebody wants to deride them, it is
>their >privilege. If somebody wants to discuss the new lakshaNas, they
>would be >welcome too.

I know that JVC has already posted SS's nava-kavita, calling it "not so new
lakshaNa Saastra - 1". I started a response to that post, a week ago, but
haven't posted it, waiting for the sequel(s).

Ramakrishna