Re : Re's - satIsh cander's vRttAntam - my opinions
Ramabhadra Dokka (sdokka@st6000.sct.edu)
Sat, 2 Nov 1996 00:37:39 -0500 (EST)
> > > haindava padyaaniki atikina aidava paadanni=20
> > ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
> > > nEnu.
bApA rAo gAru and jampAla gAru pointed out some thing like why not
the haindavam be read as "utprEksha" and why was it taken for its
face value. Here is my answer....
1. People opined that we should not read between the lines when I went
on an analysis with the previous poem. That meaning for the association
of haindavam and padyam is what a lay man thinks when he sees the word
haindavam and I wanted to point that out. When someone writes POETRY of
this nature, the first thing is that it should initially satisfy the
layman's soul and then comes the so called connaisseur (sp?). I should
have made myself clear by mentioning this point.
2. Some time back, I was commenting on some thing else and said that
people should not use the more commonly used phrases like "pOgAlamu",
"jIvita caramAmkam" etc.. to mean some thing else in POETRY for their
possible misunderstanding. This falls under the same category. It
wouldn't have bothered me much, had there been no discussion on
previous poem and had there been no suggestions to treat the poem for
its face value. I commented for what ever is its face value's worth
in this stanza. Not that I did not want to give credit for his
"utprEksha alankAram", I am answering that in the next paragraph.
3. Please look at the two lines carefully. I found the following and
even when I give the full credit for his utprEksha and these
observations brought me back to my old opinion --
a. haindava padyAniki atikina ayidava pAdAnni...
varNa vyavasthani padyam tO pOlcaDam and pOlcAnanaDam (just
because there is a vague association of number FOUR here) enta
varaku sababu ?? If that is the quality of utprEksha, I don't
think that it deserves this much elaboration on that.
ayinA, tanaku tAnugA ayidava pAdamgA ceppukonTunnADu kavi ikkaDa
and he is also indicating that padyAlu with more than 4 lines do
not exist as he himself said "atikina". My fact meter reads a
ZERO here...:-)
But in the next line he says again he is 'utta vacanam"lA etc...
By this time, when the poet negated himself and thought himself
to be vacanam, I felt that the poet is expressing his resentment
for the poetic structure as well as haindavam and that supported
the layman's definition I was talking of.
Please don't think that I am stopping at what you may call an
accusation, I have some suggestions to offer if one really cares.
If the poet has no resentment over POEM why didn't the poet compare
this cAturvarNa vyavastha with something like a "haindava mRgam" or
"haindava catushpadam" or some abstract thing like "haindava
caturasram" would have been a much better choice IMHO (caturasram
giri gIsukonnadE like the caste system and this goes well with the
vRttam and vRttAntam). Anyway, the problem started with that BAD
association of haindavam and padyam and with no reference to
varNa vyavastha.
That's all. As I said, had there been no suggestions asking for
taking the face value, may be the POET would have gotten a little
credit on this OR may be NOT for the reasons I said above.
But I should have indicated the point clearly in my analysis.
Now, let's not talk of metaphoric usage that this POET did in
this piece. I think he should think more before such usage and
also before trying any such symbolic representation as vRttAlanu
mingE vRttAlu etc..
One thing which still bothers me is his second stanza in which he
said that maraNam eppuDU nAku punarAvRttamE. I still have to figure
out what he meant by that. maraNam maLLI maLLI rAvaDamEmiTi ?? CastU
bratakaDam anE dAniki metaphor kAbOlu ani saripeTTEsukondAmA...:-)
regards..
- Ram (Ramabhadra Dokka from sdokka@st6000.sct.edu)