Lately, there is some interest on sringaaram in literature. The purpose
of sringaaram in bhakti literature and its appropriateness was questioned.
I thought, I should throw my hat into the ring and force some discussion.
I must confess that I have read the essay by George Hart of the
University of California, Berkeley, entitled "Archetypes in Classical
Indian Literature and Beyond," that has appeared in "Syllables of Sky,"
edited by David Shulman, published in honor of Velcheru Narayana Rao.
Some of you might remember that I have introduced this book on Telusaa
in December '95, soon after its release. This essay has some interesting
observations and conclusions on bhakti literature in Sanskrit and Tamil,
that could be addressed/debated on Telusaa.
It appears that Narayana Rao once suggested to George Hart "that one of
the distinguishing features of bhakti literature is that the author
supplies only half of what is said and the audience must supply the other
half." This intrigued Hart. He wondered about the statement, and
in addition, he was confronted with other dilemmas in classical Indian
literature, such as the 'lack of individuality of writers,' the
'distancing of the authors from what they write,' etc. He was convinced
that these are related and connected with what bhakti literature is!
In the following, I will try to summarize George Hart's essay, with a few
of my editorial comments. I hope I would not misrepresent his hypotheses,
ideas and conclusions.
There are two known approaches to understand the features of pre-
modern Indian literature. The Western model and the ancient alankaara
saastra model, and both are 'flawed'. One is restrictive and
patronizing, and the other deals with description, categorization and
prescription, and rarely concerns itself with what literature is and
why it is the way it is! I think, we can without much of a debate agree
on this hypothesis. The best is to look at the literature, look at what
classicists have written about it, and find some defining features.
It is generally understood that there is a moral purpose for
(particularly the pre-modern Indian literature) literature and arts.
This moral purpose is unlike the restrictive didactic notion of the West.
Essentially, if a work has no possibility for the moral upliftment of
people, its value is questioned. I think the adherents of Art-
for-art's-sake philosophy might punch us in the nose, but we will
ignore them for the time being. I believe even a cursory look at
Raamaayana and Mahaabhaarata is enough to accept this notion of 'moral
purpose.' This is true of even of the kaavyaas whose main purpose is
to give aesthetic pleasure. Even there, they manage to create in the
hearer/reader some sort of spiritual awareness. I was not sure whether
this is entirely true of all pre-modern Telugu literature. I went to
Manucaritra, tried to read the third canto ( normally one does not care
to read beyond the second canto, because there is little of sringaaram
left, and lots of vairaagyam expressed through viraham of Varuudhini in
the third canto and rest is history of Manus etc.), and could find
reasonable justification to Hart's assertion. To make the moral
pronouncements persuasive, classical authors did not write in first
person. Additionally, literature must consist of more than moral
exhortations, in whatever form they appear. That is why some literature,
distances itself from the reader. They are done either as monologues or
as conversations of the people in the story. On the other hand,
Kaalidaasa's works concern characters, gods and demigods, that live in
a fantasy world. The hearer/reader can enjoy without any moral qualms,
for the literary work does not have a bearing on everyday experience.
It is almost like any modern Indian/Telugu cinema. This literature
does not change the way a person lives or views reality. It allows the
experience of feelings that are not a part of normal life in a safe
environment.
Thus, literature in India deals not with reality but with archetypes -
models and examples that can be used for experience and conduct. The
rasa and dhvani scholars are concerned with emotional archetypes
emphasizing on feeling. Works such as Raamaayana mainly serve as
archetypes for behavior, that is as moral or ethical archetypes.
Bharthruhari's three satakaas contain examples of both these kinds of
literature. The poems of Neetisataka, for instance, are not like
commandments. They do not describe how to act. They suggest and
communicate an archetype indirectly. The moral verses in Indian literature
teach by example, not by injunction. The hearer must infer how to act
(Note the role of the hearer). In the poems of sringaarasataka, the poem
functions as an archetype for emotion in an indirect way. See for
instance,the following verse as quoted by Hart:
" Even though her breasts are heavy, and her hips are lovely,
and her mouth is bewitching, why O heart, are you distressed?
Do good deeds if you want those things, for without good deeds
no one attains what he desires."
Good deeds refer to what we call 'punya.'
Interestingly enough, bhakti literature does not set any archetypes;
rather it violates them. It is only here that an Indian writer can emerge
in his own personality. Violation of social norms and violently
contrasting emotions are allowed to fall together. From the
vairaagyasataka, Hart cites a distateful poem:
"Breasts that are only mounds of meat are compared to golden pots,
the face filled with phlegm, is likened to the moon,
the loins, moist with the flowing urine, vie with the temples of
the finest elephants,
again and again the disgusting form(of woman) is exalted
by the best of poets."
I have carefully looked into vairaagyasataka in pursuit of a more
distateful poem than the above, without success. This poem denies the
basis of emotional archetype. The poet who shows refined emotional
taste, calls into question the emotional state itself. In general,
other poems from vairaagyasataka convey that the real life is so difficult
that one can not hope to be either moral or aesthetic; one can only
struggle. That is a subtle message. In Gita, examples of violation of
conduct by archetypes can be found. Arjuna's killing of his relatives
in battle through an argument based on bhakti, is a familiar example.
Hart cites the Tamil story of Ciruttontar, who kills his son and feeds
the disguised Siva who comes to test his devotion. In another Tamil story,
a sinner Brahmin sleeps with his mother and kills his father. He encounters
Siva in disguise, who advises him to worship at the great temple in
Madurai. The sinner does obey and is saved! Do we have some 'bizarre'
stories like these in Telugu literature too?! I do not remember, off
hand, any. ( Prahlaada's story may come close, I presume!) Here bhakti
transcends the normal moral and even emotional archetypes.
Raama of Raamaayana does not fit any archetypes. He cheats in killing
Vaali, he is distraught when Sita is taken by Raavana. But, he can do
anything, a realm denied to anyone but the greatest bhakta. Same is the
case with Krishna, the seducer of the wives of the cowherds. He does not
fit any archetype. When Arjuna drops his bow and arrows, Krishna of
Gita seems distant, even though we are compelled to love him and identify
with him. This is a great paradox of bhakti: that the deity is beyond
human understanding, yet we are supposed to be emotionally involved with
him in the most intimate way. Bhakti does not break archetypes, it
sometimes reinforces them. I think the reinforcement comes from the
so-called intimacy the bhakta develops with the deity. . For the bhakta,
God is a friend, mother, father, lover, guru, child, husband, wife and
what not. This is tops!
Ultimately, archetypes are incomplete. They can neither describe nor
predict life. Humans crave a literature that goes beyond archetypes
featuring unpredictability. The free individual is to engage in any
activity in literature without moral condemnation. In India this is
achieved in bhakti literature. God can free any human being from the
normal patterns of behavior and feeling.
Bhakti is a culmination of Indian literature. Literature of the
unconstrained individual is a culmination of literature in the West.
In the West one must bring notions of order and structure to writings
about the individual, and in India one must bring archetypes of behavior
and feeling to bhakti. Both feature unpredictability. Narayana Rao was
right when he said bhakti literature demands that the hearer supply
something. The hearer must supply to bhakti his or her notions of moral
structure and emotional patterns. Thus bhakti literature in its most
profound manifestations can transport the hearer to a place outside the
conventional modes, a liminal reality from which different perspectives
are gained in life.
This is a brief (!!!) summary of Hart's eighteen page article, as I
understood it. At places I have shamelessly plagiarized parts of
paragraphs from George Hart's essay. Now we can accept or deny the
propositions with examples from pre-modern Telugu literature. That
job is left to those who have our classical literature on their finger
tips (or on the tips of their lips!) and who can understand such
literature much better than I can. And, we have quite a few of them
with us.
I will add just this much. Obviously it depends on what notions you
supply as your half in this bargain. A decent bargain, I think. If your
half tends toward 'pornography' in respect to sringaaram in bhakti
literature, it might transport you to places 'elsewhere.' Remember,
God is everything for the bhakta, wife child, lover etc. If we buy that,
sringaaram in bhakti poetry need not be looked upon as patently
'tasteless,' 'dirty,' or even 'hypocritical.' After all, if your half of
the 'supply' is different, then the result is different.
Best Regards.
-- Venkateswara Rao Veluri