Criticism, Edward Said, Jagannatha Pandita

It seems in one way that Literature is the highest achievement of us as human beings, in whatever way different groups approach it and hold it. Just pure appreciation, involved and empathetic, is discounted nowadays in preference to operating upon the literary creation, dissecting, boring into, peeling off, dismembering and critical investigation. Many literary theories of all hues and purposes serve the modern transacting with Literature. Of course I am aware of the gains by such processings and I do appreciate to a large extent the panoply of theories applied. But when all operations are over and various readings got and verified, there is nothing to compare with the alter-awareness that we achieve through a pure, simple and straight aesthetic involvement in a literary piece. We may think of mixing the two ways but it will be a hard mix even then and the elements resisting each other. Man is not only a 'heady' being but also a 'hearty' being and it is perhaps an art really, how he manages the two beings of his own identity from the vantage of what being of his inner reality, supra or meta or composite. Perhaps solving this in the literary world will empower the human being to face more drastic issues of the concrete world with more wisdom. 

What is Criticism and that too literary criticism? Where does a Critic find his own position? Is it a simply negative stance or wakeful being in the now or an alteration between two negations? Is it just positioning oneself against all aesthetic appreciative involvement, a pretense to make good the absence of a heart quality? But I know too well the clarification that the critical theories give and also the pure delight in aesthetic involvement. What Edward Said is saying is very much adding to my cogitations on the status and efficacy of criticism in general.

"Criticism in short is always situated; it is skeptical, secular, reflectively open to its own failings. This is by no means to say that it is value-free. Quite the contrary, for the inevitable trajectory of critical consciousness is to arrive at some acute sense of what political, social. and human values are entailed in the reading, production, and transmission of every text. To stand between culture and system is therefore to stand close to - closeness itself having a particular value for me - a concrete reality about which political, moral, and social judgements have to be made and, if not only made, then exposed and demystified. If, as we have recently been told by Stanley Fish, every act of interpretation is made possible and given force by an interpretive community, then we must go a great deal further in showing what situation, what historical and social configuration, what political interests are concretely entailed by the very existence of interpretive communities.This is an especially important task when these communities have evolved camouflaging jargons.'
(Edward W Said, The World, The Text and The Critic pp 26, Harvard University Press, 1983)

Whereas in Sanskrit literature, critics have been distinguished from creative authors. Creative authors were attributed with creative spark of cognition, whereas the critics were attributed with critical reading and understanding spark of cognition. A great critic and creative genius of Sanskrit poetry, Jagannatha Pandita in his Rasa Gangadhara talks about the nature of poetic delight or elation of aesthetic communion, which in Sanskrit is called Rasa. He says Rasa is nothing but Consciousness made free of its blindfold of ignorance. This concept of Jagannatha Pandita teams with what Edward Said is trying to say above in the excerpt from his book.

***

Space stitions or super stition?

Mr A S Eddington in his book 'The Nature of the Physical World' writes a beautiful statement, which tells what all need be told about the micro and macro worlds in which and between which man lives or is supposed to be living.

'The atom is as porous as the solar system. If we eliminated all the unfilled space in a man's body and collected his protons and electrons into one mass, the man would be reduced to a speck just visible with a magnifying glass.'

So are we so solid as we think or ......one relative opaque space talking to another relative opaque space? in the meanwhile all the so called properties are in a way.......
'super+stitions'? There is much to Space than there is space to anything.

* 

Who is Vivekananda

Vivekananda, a biography, (Jan 2013), by Swami Nikhilananda, pp 326

"At one of the public meetings in New York, after addressing a tense audience for about fifteen minutes, the Swami suddenly made a formal bow and retired. The meeting broke up and the people went away greatly disappointed. A friend asked him, when he was returning home, why he had cut short the lecture in that manner, just when both he and the audience were warming up. Had he forgotten his points? Had he become nervous? The Swami answered that at the meeting he had felt that he had too much power. He had noticed that the members of the audience were becoming so absorbed in his ideas that they were losing their own individualities. He had felt that they had become like soft clay and that he could give them any shape he wanted. That, however, was contrary to his philosophy. He wished every man and woman to grow according to his or her own inner law. He did not wish to change or destroy anyone's individuality. That was why he had had to stop."

What a Man he was! 

"We are the worshippers of that God, who by the ignorant is called Man." so said he.

*

A small book of Vedanta in Tamil

I am astounded by a very small book published way back in 1908. The author is Thalavai Iramaswami Mudaliyar. He is one of the three sons of Thalavai Thirumaalaiyappa Mudaliyar. Some four hundred and fifty years back, Thalavai was a title awarded along with powers and functions by Krishna Deva Raya. The family has done many acts of charity and public cause. Our author Thalavai Iramaswami Mudaliyar, living in Tirunelveli during 1908 was so ardent and anxious in spiritual pursuits and the book bears evidence that he was very advanced in his knowledge of advaita books of reference. To assist aspirants who may toil and fret in future, he has beautifully capsuled very salient thoughts and rules of advaithic practice in just 30 pages, called Vedantha Sangirakam, in Tamil. Some nuggets for your touch-stone -

’வேதாந்த சாஸ்திராப்பியாசிகளான முமுட்சுக்களில் அதிதீவிரதர பக்குவிகளாயும், விரிந்தவை அல்லலென்று நினைப்பவர்களாயும் இருப்பவர்களுக்கு உபயோகப்படுமாறு பலசாஸ்திரங்களின் சாராம்சத்தைத் திரட்டி வசன ரூபமாயும், சுருக்கமாயும் வேதாந்த சங்கிரகம் என்னும் இந்நூல் இயற்றப்பட்டிருக்கிறது.’

so goes the preface. One Brahmmasri Narayana Swamigal, called Coimbatore Swamigal, has indited a stanza of praise like this -

’சற்சங்க ராமசா மித்தள வாய்ப்புனிதன்
நிற்சங்க மாநிரா லம்பமெய்தத் - தத்சங்க
நற்சுவையா வேதாந்த சங்கிரக நல்கினான்
சிற்சங்க மாகச் செறிந்து.’

The book proper -

’ஜெக ஜீவ பரத்தின் குணதோஷங்களை நன்றாய் ஆராய்ந்து அதன் உண்மையை அறிந்து அதனிடமாக வைத்த பற்றுக்களை நீக்குந்தன்மையே வைராக்கியமாம்.’

ஜெக சீவ பரம் மித்தை என்று அறிவதே வைராக்கியமாகும்’

’ஆத்துமாவில் தோன்றின அறிவு அதில் ஒடுங்குவதே முத்தி என்றறிந்து போக இச்சை ஜெகக் காட்சிகளை நீக்கினவனே பக்குவன்’

’அறிவதெல்லாம் அறிந்த மனதுக்கு அடைவு ஏதென்றால் போகங்களைத் தனது என்று எண்ணும் நினைவைத் தவிர்ந்து நிற்றலாம். இதுவே பக்குவம்.’

‘காளைப் பருவத்தில் உலகாசாரத்தை நீக்கித் தன்மனத்தில் உதித்த அற்ப விசாரத்தால் ஞானத்தில் மனதை நிலைபெறச் செய்வது ஆச்சரியம்.’

’பிரமமே உல்லாச லீலையால் சரீரம் உடையவனைப் போலவும், புமானைப் போலவும் பிரகாசிக்கும்.’

’பிரமமாகிற நமது ஆத்துமாவே, பிரமமென்றும் கூடஸ்தனென்றும் ஈசுரனென்றும் சீவனென்றும் நான்கு சைதன்னியமாகும்.’

So goes through all 30 pages full of aphoristic mint.

The Thalavai has been a Thalavai of Meignana also. And the small book is a great act of charity for even the yet-to-come souls pursuing non-dual realisation. My humble salute to the great soul, so generous. 

Namo Parama Rishibyo namo Parama Rishibyaha.

(Ref : Vedanta Sangirakam, Thalavai Iramaswamy Mudaliyar, 1908, Thirunelveli Siththivinaayakar acchuyantira saalai, pp 35)

***

A J Ayer and NDE

A great philosopher of the logical positivist school, A J Ayer, was uncompromising in his stand that statements which do not lend themselves to empirical verification or analytical exercise are quite meaningless. A great hit at the traditional metaphysics indeed. He was not a shy away philosopher when he confronted the unwanted advances of Mike Tyson on a new model in a party given by a fashion designer, saying 'I suggest we talk about this like rational men'. 

Just one year before his death, A J Ayer had a near-death experience. On recovery he said that the experience slightly weakened his conviction that his genuine death will be the end of him. Later he opined that he should have rather told instead 'my experiences have weakened, not my belief that there is no life after death, but my inflexible attitude towards that belief'.

Strange! We demand that we should experience ourselves to accept anything. But will we allow ourselves to accept our experiences?

***

Reality and Study

When we were studying High School or College, we were not having high tech resources of study materials. At the most some extra libraries some miles away and expecting perhaps half a day's journey to and fro to take one or two books of your choice or luck and another hour or two towards rest before you can zero in on your book load in some recluse corner in the rooftop. If it is a great find and hefty material of your interests then to share about it you have to wait till the next day when in the college you can chat over chaayaa. Naturally many authors worthy of note who belonged to the period from the end of 19th CE to the middle of 20th CE. But what we covered by way of college study and personal study and extra studies seemed sumptuous. Of course the mental culture had a great time to shape, enough rest and space to digest and progress. But after the internet what we covered in regular and extra curricular seem little and sparse.

Otherwise how to account for this man Mr L P Jacks, Lawrence Pearsall Jacks, whom I simply didn't hear about mentioned. But see his writing! If this is not sanity then what else?

"To say that the universe is a Rational Whole appears to me true. But to treat this as an adequate account of Reality appears to me false. I am equally averse to regarding the rationality of the universe as the fundamental or all-inclusive or even the dominant form of its self-expression.

What does form a Rational Whole and is adequately described by this term is the movement of thought throughout the ages—in a word, the History of Philosophy. To equate this movement with the universe to which it refers, to make the History of Philosophy into a History of Reality, appears to me an error. We are constantly tempted to make this equation, and constantly prevented from seeing its falsity, by the habit of treating speculative thought as a form of ours into which all experience must manage to fit itself."

(L P Jacks, The Alchemy of Thought, Williams and Norgate, 1911, Preface)

***