nAlO nEnu (Is literature the ultimate? #8)
Prabhakar Vissavajjhala (vissa@cortex.neuro.mssm.edu)
Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:25:16 -0500
nAlO nEnu
[Is literature (poetry) the ultimate regarding practical reality?#8)
[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: .... Why in the oldtime prayers/classics, people often described the
breasts of a goddess, while addressing her? Isn't this odd? I may take it
O.K. with a 'kAvya nAyika', but how about with a goddess? for e.g.,'
.....kucOnnatE, kumkuma rAga SONE' by kALidAsu; 'Sree ramaNee kuca
durga vihArE' by sadASiva brahmEndra; and 'kATuka kanTineeru
canukaTTu payinbaDa...." by pOtana. How to digest this? How can you
explain this?
B: It is a tough question to answer definitely. Let me give a try. Ten
days ago, we were listening to the test cricket commentary between England
and Australia being played in Birmingham, England. The commentator said,
'here, we have a guest appearance of a streaker and this is a common
practice in England and Australia.' Did you remember? Who is a streaker?
M: Person moves around naked.
B: vEmana also disrobed himself. So, can we classify him as a streaker?
M: Tricky question. Why did you ask this?
B: Here are two people looking similar. So, is there a difference between
them? I asked you because, you know about vEmana, how and why he disrobed
himself.
M: Yah! Though, I can't say that is a right way, I can't put vEmana and a
streaker in the same basket. Whatever its worth may be, vEmana reached that
stage due to tremendous philosophical heights. He got himself detached from
the wordly matters. So, it is certainly unfair to equate him with a
streaker.
B: I guess, it appears to me the same reason based on one vEmana's poem
about the women's breasts and the approach of a man and a child towards
them. Contrary to his general ATaveladis, this is a kanda. I didn't
remember the whole poem but the crucial lines I did. Talking of women
breasts, he says a man approaches them with sexual desire but a child with
the affectionate for milk.
.........
.........
pati cUcu meedi mAMsamu
sutu Dandali pAla prEma cUcura vEma!
So, an authentic devotee of a godess in an ecstatic mood, when he got
himself detached from the worldly matters, obviously must be looking at her
as her child, feeling her as a great mother rather than looking at her as a
machO man or her husband. It is very tough to convince this as the reason
unless one can at least imaginarily step into their shoes. So, it certainly
looks odd, if one judges them by one's own standards.
M: Well, looks to be a complicated issue. Can't say how many can be
convinced with this. Anyway, coming to the next question, Is there a basis
in the old literature for the modern or revolutionary poetry? How could you
say this?
B: Take a quiz. I read a piece of poetry. You tell me the author. O.K.?
upadravamlA uvvettugA lEci
samhArAnni syandanam cEsi
udrEka tarangAlE turangAlugA
Agraham koraDA cEbUni
sAyudha viplava bheebhatsuni sAradhinai
bhArata kurukshEtramlO
navayuga bhagavadgeetA 'jhanjha' ni prasaristAnu
M: Who else? kavitA paraSurAmuDu; Sree Sree. But just mentioning 'one
piece of poem' showing bhagavadgeeta, doesn't emphasize that everything is
in there. Does it?
B: Well, Afterall, what is 'karma phala tyAgam/ nishkAma karma'
repeatedly mentioned in 'bhagavadgeeta' is nothing but the same Sree Sree
quite often mentioned in his essays ' prati phalA pEksha lEkunDA pani
cEsE vALLu unTE, sAmyavAdam tvaragA vastundi'. What is the difference
between the two? The only point is, there weren't many such people either
at that time or at this time.
Similarly, I told you so many times that the resemblances of bhavavadgeeta
to communism were talked by quite a few people earlier to Sree
Sree.['yETukUri balarAma mUrti's' (a staunch Marxist communist)
'bhArateeya tatva SAstramu'. He wrote another book on
'bhagavadgeeta-Marxism' also. kavirAju tripuranEni rAma svAmi caUdari
(1887-1943)]
M: But' bhagavadgeeta' created divisions among people based on caste. That
has literally ruined the system. So, still do you think we should
appreciate it?
B: Take a look at that.
cAturvarNA mayA sRshTham
guNa karma vibhAgaSa
The four caste system is based on the types of 'deeds they do and their
character'.It not determined birth as many people think. It was never
mentioned that way.
brAhmaNa kshatriya viSam SUdrAm
SUdrA NAmca parantapa
karmANi pravi bhaktAni
svabhAva prabhavair guNA
'brAhmaNa, kshatriya, vaisya, SUdra karma lanniyu; svabhavamu nunDi
puTTina guNamula nanusarinci vibhaktamu lainavi.'
The people with 'satva guNa' perform their actions considering the soul is
the same for all the creatures. The people with 'rajO guNa' perform their
actions considering the imporatnace of the people's relation. The third
'tamO guNa' people perform their actions confining to self interests with
individuval outlook. (The respective three SlOkAs are omitted from
presentation.) Afterall, can't people find these mentalities even today
among the humans?
This is how the castes were created based on people's nature with
reference to their actions. Along with them, the principle of equality was
also said in bhagavadgeeta, 'sarvatra sama darSana@ha' (to have an equal
look at every one) as the present day people also talk, read or write very
often. But how much of true implementation was there either in old times
or in modern times regarding equality can only be determined by how many
4th category people were there at a given time, but not by how many 3rd
category people read and discussed about it and messed it up in practice.
M: You are just trying to justify the writer throwing the blame on the
people, aren't you?
B: O.K. Look at this way. With a mighty effort fighting against so many,
Sree giDugu rAma mUrti (1863-1940) brought 'vyAvahArika bhAsha' into
existance. But today hardly after 50-60 years, we see all kinds of
vulgarity also getting accumulated in the litarature or its related media.
So, do you mean to say that somebody should hold Sree giDugu responsible
for all this descendency and blame him for his efforts? If somebody
commits a rape and says that calam's (1894-1979) literature inspired him so
he didn't feel like suppressing his desire, how fair it is? Should we
accept that? All the time, whether past or present indeed, even in future
also, there were, there are and there will be unworthy 3rd and 2nd and 1st
category people to take selfish advantages from the existing system. They
just take shelter under that system with their own crooked logic. Should
this be attributed to those who developed the system with a good intension?
M: O.K. How about feminism? Isn't that a modern day concept at least?
(to be continued)
With regards,
Prabhakar Vissavajjhala