nAlO nEnu (Is literature the ultimate? #6)
Prabhakar Vissavajjhala (vissa@cortex.neuro.mssm.edu)
Mon, 16 Jun 1997 20:31:50 -0500
nAlO nEnu
[Is literature (poetry) the ultimate regarding practical
reality?#6)
[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.]
B: As usually, so many questions at a time in an emotional way. O.K. Have
you heard of M. S. subba lakshmi? Have you heard of 'aUranga zeeb'? Are
you a biochemist? Are you a vegetarian or a non-vegetarian?
M: What kind of funny questions these are?
B: No. They are not funny questions. Though, I am not interested in some of
them, now I got to look at them as you raised. As usually, you will have
one good point to question but stretch it emotionally forcing me to
establish something to make you realize the intricacies and limitations
involved in there.
M: O.K. I agree, there are a few emotional stretches. But these are not
from me alone. They are from my counterparts also. How one can say that
only chandO poetry is poetry, and the present day non chandO poetry has no
literary value? Which one do you agree with?
B: You tell me as a biochemist, what is the difference between a plant
protein and an animal protein?
M: What do you mean? What are you aiming at?
B: O. K. I tell you. There is a great resemblance between 'proteins' and
'telugu poetry'.
M: You are funny.
B: What else I can be about an unimportant issue? Just enjoy these
resemblances. Proteins either from plants or animals are formed from a pool
of 20 fundamental building units called amino acids. Similarly, chandO or
non chandO poetry of telugu language is formed from 56 fundamental letters.
So, those who realize this will have least repercussions about the external
differences. You can enjoy whichever one you like or both of them if you
can, as basically you would get the same kind of amino acids from both.
Sometimes the nutritious value of a protein may never be explored properly
as it just happened to be the form someone doesn't like. Proteins or poetry
should be properly cooked and served. Some cooks may not cook some of these
forms well. Some people just cook for themselves. Good cooks take up jobs
in restaurants or supply their cooking to some stores so that they can
serve many. Some people, though like a particular form, they don't like it
from a specific cook. Some people are more particular of what they don't
like rather than what they like. So, they are more keen in avoiding
onething rather than having something. As we know sometimes, people may
switch from one form to the other during their life time. Above all, rather
than mere liking, one should be able to digest it and get the essence out
of it. Sometimes, one may need digestive enzymes also.
M: You are really funny. What do you think of archiac forms of usages?
B: They do exist whether you like them or not. After a while, what you are
presently thinking is modern may turn to be archiac or may become extinct
also. Afterall, anybody or anything would be aged one day and become out
dated. Also, at any given stage there does exist a transition. Hence, it is
extremely tough to determine which is archiac, as opinions may vary at a
given time. So, for all practical purposes a sensible one goes as per
vEmana's poem.
kunDa kumbha manna konDa parvata manna
uppu lavaNa manna okaTi gAde
bhAsha iTula vEru paratatva mokaTaya
M: So, what is the solution, if some people dislike something?
B: Remind them of the history of 'aUrangazeeb' (1658-1707) and his
intolerance towards hinduism and tell them that they are repeating history.
If they want a positive example for what tolerance means to change over to
a new leaf, tell them about akbar pAdusha (1556-1605).
M: Does history repeat?
B: Of course. You shouldn't suspect it, being an Andhra? What was
'palanATi yuddhasm'? It was nothing but a real 'telugu mahAbhArata.
M: Can you elaborate?
B: Some other time. Let us come to the serious issue after these
unimportant ones.
When and if literature is not the ultimate without being put into action to
deal with the reality, what kind of literature is the best for the 3rd
category to hear and talk about? Shouldn't that deal with the present times
so that people can stay focussed to the present day reality instead of the
past romantic and devitional classics. Wasn't that your main question,
apart from the other unimportant ones that we discussed above?
M: Yes.
B: Have you heard of M. S. subba lakshmi?
M: Of course, she is a great carnatic music singer.
B: What does she sing?
M: Mostly annamAcArya, tyAgarAja kRtis etc.
B: So, obviously the literary content of those deal either with gods or
philosophy.
M: That is my point what is the use of such literature or arts today with
reference to present day problems?
B: Do you know that she is one of the most charitable artists and most of
her concerts are for the sake of charities. So, did the kRtis of gods in
archiac forms of literature keep her away from ignoring the present day
reality and contributing as much as she can? Don't we see several classical
music and dance programmes that raise the funds for the sake of charity?
You know very well that whenever there is a call for a flood-relief or an
earth-quake hit you definitely see people do contribute as much as one can.
Can anybody decisively say that only the people who read and discuss modern
day writings are the only contributing ones on those occasions with a sense
of present day reality but not the people who read age old classical
archiac forms of literature? How fair it is to think that a person who
reads old classics get detached from the present times? For that matter,
is all the modern day poetry/writings truly modern without a basis of the
past?
As you often say times have changed, I could see a lot of changes today.
Unlike yester years, today there is a combination of arts like dance, music
and literature together form the means of powerful impact creating
audiovisual communication in the form of movies, which can beat any form of
the art in isolation. Do all of them address the problems of the poor? Even
when and if they are addressing, how authentic they are without an element
of commercialization? Isn't female anatomy being exposed to the extent of
detailed visual perception on the big silver screen along with
double-meaning songs and catchy tunes? In addition, aren't there sex
magazines and wall posters emerging out in abundance in the name of
publicity? If change is natural with time, should every change be
considered good and progressive? Aren't there bad trends in the present day
literature or literature involved means of communications?
M: So, many questions at a time?
B: Yah! Just I wanted to give you a taste of your own medicine.
(to be continued)
With regards,
Prabhakar Vissavajjhala