Words And Nature

              POEMS  AND  POETS

               33. Words And   Nature

Words are the common medium of poets, novelists,prose writers. But they do not use them in the same way- in sense or intensity. In prose and novels, words carry a precise meaning, which gives them power. But for a poet, words are a passport to a different world; they depend on their power to suggest something, beyond merely what is spoken about. It is mainly  this which constitutes the chief difference between prose and poetry.

Consider the opening scene from Macbeth.

Act I,Scene 1

Thunder and Lightning. Enter three witches.

First Witch

     When shall we three meet again?
     In thunder,lightning, or in rain?

Second Witch

     When the hurly-burly's done,
     When the battle's lost and won.

Third Witch
   
     That will be ere the set of sun.

First Witch

     Where the place?

Second Witch

     Upon the heath.

Third Witch

     There to meet with Macbeth.

Thunder, lightning, rain; hurly-burly, battle lost and won, sunset, heath- each of these has acquired a significance;quite ominous, because witches say it, meeting amid thunder and lightning. We know something is happening to Macbeth.

Great novelists achieve this poetic quality.
Consider this from Dickens's Bleak House: (1852)

" London. The Michaelmas Term lately over, and the Lord Chancellor sitting in Lincoln's Inn Hall. Implacable November weather. As much mud in the streets, as if the waters had but newly retired from the face of the earth, and it would not be wonderful to meet a Megalosaurus, forty feet long or so, waddling like an elephantine lizard up Holborn-hill . Smoke lowering down from chimney-pots, making a soft black drizzle, with flakes of soot in it as big as full-grown snow-flakes-gone into mourning, one might imagine, for the death of the sun. Dogs, undistinguishable in mire. Horses, scarcely better; splashed to their very blinkers. Foot passengers, jostling one another's umbrellas, in a general infection of ill temper, and losing their foot-hold at street corners, where tens of thousands of other foot passengers have been slipping and sliding since the day broke ( if the day ever broke), adding new deposits to the crust upon the crust of mud, sticking at those points tenaciously to the pavement, and accumulating at compound interest."

This is prose at its graphic best. Everything is brought before our eyes. Nothing is left to chance, or imagination.

Look at this from Thomas Hardy:  The Return of the Native:(1878)

A Saturday afternoon in November.... the vast tract of unenclosed wild known as Egdon Heath...... The distant rims of the world  and of the firmament  seemed to be a division in time no less than a division in matter. The face of the heath by its mere complexion added half an hour to the evening. It could in like manner retard the dawn, sadden the noon, anticipate the frowning of storms scarcely generated, and intensify the opacity of a moonless midnight to a cause of shaking and dread.

 .....the obscurity in the air and the obscurity in the land closed together in a black fraternisation....

         The  untameable, Ishmaelitish thing that Egdon was now, it always has been. Civilisation was its enemy; and ever since the beginning of vegetation, its soil has worn the same unique brown dress,....In its venerable one coat  lay a certain vein of satire on human vanity in clothes.

Graphic enough; but the prose does something more. Coming in the beginning of the novel, it is not a mere description of a physical landscape: it induces a psychological landscape. Unenclosed wild, division in time, saddening the noon, anticipate the frowning storms, shaking and dread,untameable thing,satire on human vanity- all these add up to a strange uneasiness, that the place is going to be an active participant in the unfolding story, and it is not going to be kind to every one, especially to those with an eye or mind on the city, for civilisation is its enemy.  Those who read a novel for its action will hardly notice this, like the modern tourists who 'do' the many places, may be clicking the pictures in their mobile, but hardly registering the thing in their mind! But if you pause and keep step upon conscious step as you walk the heath, it can hardly fail to stir you in some strange fashion. Here, the prose has the effect of poetry- taking you beyond the words, or the mere action. It makes you focus on the inner landscape of your mind and psyche. Reviewing our own lives, we can certainly recall moments when some places have exercised such an influence.

( Incidentally, a heath here, as in Macbeth!)

Both Dickens and Hardy are describing an objective scene. But Hardy vests in it a subjective vision, through the power of suggestion. Dickens deals with man's place in London of his times, the social conditions emerging consequent on the industrial revolution. But Hardy is using a remote country locale to place man in the universe, and question his place in it, and its meaning for his life! Dickens deals with problems and situations relevant to a particular point in time, which can be tackled by man- and so they have been tackled since; but Hardy's questions are more intractable. They are bound up with our being human; they show a side of human condition where our very attempt to improve things seems to worsen the situation, as if the gods do not want man to outwit them! It looks intensely tragic at times, but many poets have alluded to it. Byron wrote:

There's not a joy the world can give like that it takes away.

Perhaps this was at the back of his mind when our Kaifi Azmi wrote:

Ik haath se deti hai duniya,
Sau haathon se le leti hai,
Ye khel hai kab se jaari!

What the world gives with one hand,
It takes away with a hundred!
And this game has been going on since long!

Even Keats wrote in Endymion:

To sorrow
I bade good-morrow
And thought to leave her far away behind:
But cheerly,cheerly,
She loves me dearly;
She is so constant to me, and so kind.
I would deceive her,
And so leave her,
But ah! she is so constant and so kind!

All this is not said to depress us, but to induce a sense of detachment about the world. Be in the world, but not of it- easily said. All true religions teach us this in their own way. Keats himself said:

And then 'twas fit that from this mortal state
Thou shouldst, my love, by some unlooked for change
Be spiritualized.

         

     

God Is!

                                     POEMS  AND  POETS

                            15.God Is!

What is our idea of God? We have absolutely no idea! That is why we have named that state God!  'God' stands as a convenient label for all that we do not know! If something happens, and we do not know why, it is an act of God! Somehow things go on in this world . We can no more think of it without God than we can think of an orchestra without a conductor.

" President of the Immortals" wrote Thomas Hardy.What an expression! Not at all complimentary, from the context. Or helpful.

We Hindus are more practical. If you think you can never know  or say anything about it, call it Brahman! If you think the world must have a creator, as a pot must have a potter, call him Ishwara! If you think he hears your complaints and listens to you and hastens to your succour, call him Bhagavan! If you think he comes to the world from time to time to set a crooked world straight, call him an Incarnation- Avatara! If you think you can have a God all to yourself, call him Ishtadevata! Why call "Him" at all? it could be She- Mother, who can do no wrong by a child! And should it be only Father or Mother? It could be Son too! Though not all sons are so honoured- the sons of Rama and Krishna, for example! We do not put all our eggs in the same basket.

In the Tamil land, almost the first word for God taught by non-sectarian families to their young children is "Ummachi". It is a modified,colloquial form of "Uma Maheshwara", the universal parents of all children of the world, of all ages! Great Kalidasa sang:

" Vagarthaviva sampruktau vagartha pratipattaye
Jagata: pitarau vande Parvati Parameshwarau"

Like the word and its meaning, the universal parents Parvati-Parameshwara ever are one! They cannot be separated. Nor can they be separated from the  world-jagat! It is always together-God and His power, but the mother always comes first. Sita Ram, Lakshmi Narayan, Uma Maheshwara, Girija Shankar, etc. The Veda asks us to honour mother first, before mentioning father: Matru Devo Bhava, Pitru Devo Bhava.

It is remarkable how educated Hindus use the  English word God nonchalantly, even though no one knows what it means!  Even though it does not correspond to any of the Hindu names or conceptions! Yet the same Hindus would be allergic to the word Allah which just means embodiment of perfection, what is called in the Upanishad "Purnam", or Malik, which means, Master!

Ideas relating to God are developed elaborately in Hindu theology. Each cult has its own take, its own slant or angle. The modern Ph.Ds are as nothing  compared to our theological disputants! Through this maze, some concrete ideas emerge, common to all.

One is advised to have a personal relationship to God. One must relate to him as one would to an actual living person.

Four possible relationship types are held out. 

• the parent or child
• the friend
• the master-servant
• the majestic, detached admirer (Santa Bhava)

Above all comes the attitude of the beloved. Some saints go to the extent of extolling the model of illicit love! For in this case, the feeling is so intense that even though the person is with some one, he/she is constantly thinking of the illicit lover! One should read the explanations given by the 19th century saint Sri Ramakrishna for a clear account of these attitudes. Various historical/

legendary  figures are held up as the models  for each type. Arjuna is the best type of friend.

In following devotion to God,the general method is to follow some set rules, practices; but as one matures, external rules yield to pure intention and emotion. The former is called vaidi- or rule based, and the latter,raga- deeply emotional.

When it comes to intense practice or sadhana, two attitudes are extolled: the monkey way and the cat way. The baby monkey firmly holds the mother, while it jumps from tree to tree, or runs around. So must we hold on to God. But here the onus is on us. We may slip. Not so in the cat way! Here the mother cat holds the kitten in its mouth, and goes about! So, we must let God do with us what he would! The mother cat may put the kitten on a roof top, on some fine bed , or in the rubbish heap! It cannot be complaining, for it knows the mother knows best! Various historical examples are given.

Modern Tamil poet Subramanya Bharati was a revolutionary. He conceived of God as our servant! Yes, he comes and helps us even as our faithful domestic servant relieves us of our hard chores and ensures ease! How much we suffer at times for want of a good domestic help! Bharati sang of Krishna as the servant- a hilarious and at the same time moving account! I confess I cannot attempt to give a translation- or even a gist. It is for some great one like Mrs. Prema Nandakumar!

If monkey and cat are found, what about man's best friend? It is not left out! We have Francis Thompson singing of God as the very hound- not any dog!

Mysticism is perhaps the extreme state of pure devotion, though it can also result from direct perception of Truth. It is a state where the person is in communion with Reality of God. It is an experience of non-differentiation, of unity or Oneness.  It can be permanent- lasting a life time, or of short duration , or just flashy, lasting  but a few moments, but leaving a lasting impression or memory. It is difficult to classify, and to understand. This is a phenomenon experienced by people across nationalities, faiths and time. But the result has not been always happy. Christianity encourages rule-bound devotion, and has not looked upon mystics with  favour.They persecuted and even killed them.  eg Giordino Bruno and Meister Eckhart.Islam has been even more intolerant. Most mystic elements go underground -which is a sad thing , because so much of undesirable  practices may masquerade in its name, or live unrecognised.

A true mystic is indifferent to his circumstances, hardly even aware of the external world. Most live in seclusion, at least avoid society and its conventions.  When they speak or write, the language would appear rather strange. So, as a class mystics have been subject to much misunderstanding.

Mystics are not metaphysical or didactic: they do not set out to teach or establish anything. They may only be describing what they saw or felt in words which are peculiar to them. Conventional words are at times used to convey something unusual.

Francis Thompson: 1859-1907

Francis Thompson meets our ideas of a mystic rather fully. Enrolled to pursue medicine, the library found him reading poetry and not physiology.He left his studies, and came to London in rags but with one chief possession: a volume of Blake's poems. Though a Roman Catholic, he was interested in mysticism and found like minded people with whom he lived in miserable conditions, cleaning boots and selling newspapers. Fortunately for him , his poems impressed  Wilfrid Meynell who was running a magazine; he and his wife Alice took him to their home,in 1888, for the rest of his life. They helped him publish his poems.

The Hound of Heaven

This is Thompson's greatest poem. It has few parallels in richness of imagery, loftiness of thought. Its greatest achievement is the infusion of hope for the dejected soul.

Ordinary religious teaching is that man should seek God. This is where we go astray, lured by the world, and our own mind and its ways! Enchanted by the magic, we forget the magician! Thompson tells us that no matter what we do, where we go, the Divine does not leave us- he pursues us , till  he catches us! It is rather like the cat taking the kitten!

I fled Him, down the nights and down the days;

  I fled Him down the arches of the years;

I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways

  Of my own mind; and in the mist of tears 

I hid from Him, and under running laughter

                      Up vistaed hopes,I sped;

                      And shot, precipitated

Adown Titanic glooms of chasmed fears,

  From those strong feet that followed,,followed after.

                      But with unhurrying chase,

                      And unperturbed pace,

  Deliberate speed, majestic instancy,

                     They beat - and a voice beat

                     More instant than the feet-

  "All things betray thee, who betrayest Me."

In this very first stanza, Thompson conveys almost everything he has to say. Man runs away from God through the yearsie his life time and faculties are wasted.. The chief culprit here is the mind- with its 'laybyrinthine ways'.  Mind is the chief cause of both liberation and bondage, says the Gita. Upanishad   (Indian philosophy or is it psychology?) holds that the senses are created with an outward moving tendency. They look outward. But even when  they look inward, it is not truth that it perceives.

 In the Indian conception, what is called 'mind' in English has no exact equivalent. It is a composite entity-consisting of manas, buddhi, chitta and ahankara.  They are together called antahkarana- the inner faculty.These layers respond to different aspects of external nature, called prakriti.Our mind is of the stuff of prakriti- so they are allied.

But what we call mind is not a tabula rasa. It is a repository of previous impressions- called vasanas. So it moves in a pre-determined grove, picking out those elements from prakriti which nourish it. This accounts for the different talents and tendencies at birth even of children born of the same parents and raised in the same background. So, the mind has to be trained to seek the truth. This is the sole purpose and secret behind all the thousand and one disciplines  prescribed by all religions. They are to save our self from our own mind!

God pervades the whole universe, as the Isha Upanishad declares. So where can we go away from him? And how? It is just a matter of time before he catches us. May be, He will let us run about a bit like the mother cat does with her young one, but she will catch us in the end , by the very scruff of our neck!

Why do we run away from God? God is a sole concern- he will not be one among the many! This every genuine  devotee realises :

" having  him I must have naught beside."

"Ananyas chintayanto mam ye janah paryupasate

Tesham nityabhi yuktanam yogakshemam vahamyaham", declares Krishna in the Gita. 9.22 (Those who worship Me without any other thought- I supply what they lack and preserve what they 

have)

"Ananya cheta: satatam yo mam smarati nischaya:

Tasmaham sulabha: partha"  8.14

(He who remembers Me daily, constantly, without any other thought- I am easily attatainable by him)

So, what the Lord wants from us is our undivided mind- and this is what we are not willing to offer! We are not prepared to give up the world, for the sake of God.

Thompson tempts God's servitors but in their constancy to Him, they are fickle to Thompson! What can shelter him who turns away from God?

"Naught shelters thee, who wilt not shelter Me"

Why not turn to Nature?

But nature is but "poor stepdame". It will not do.

"Naught contents thee,who content'st not Me"

"All things fly thee, for thou fliest Me."

What is then one to do?

All religions teach us to seek God. They prescribe many disciplines. But can God be won by any tricks, however named?

We never can deserve God. It is his mercy that He chooses us. Did not some one say: Lord, what is man that Thou art mindful of him?'

This is what in the end the struggling soul has to realise. We do not merit God- He comes down on his own. "Avyaja karuna"- grace without cause-as the Sanskritists say. 

At last Thompson hears the voice of Grace:

"And human love needs human meriting;

         How hast thou merited-

Of all man's clotted clay the dingiest clot?

         Alack, thou knowest not

How little worthy of any love thou art!

Whom wilt thou find to love ignoble  thee

         Save Me, save only Me?

When we study the life of Saints and mystics, we do not find them walking the path of roses all the time. Many of them were indeed poor. Whatever may be the external circumstances, they do not complain, or grumble. Krishna even says in the Bhagavatam that when he wants to save some one, he takes away his wealth! People seek earthly riches from Him, when He is ready to give Himself! Did not Christ tell the rich man who wanted to follow Him, to get rid of  all his possessions and then follow Him? We all want both  the world and God ( or the world through God) and so end up getting neither! Can we travel two paths at the same time?

"All which I took from thee I did but take,

           Not for thy harms,

But just that thou might'st seek it in My arms.

           All which thy child's mistake

Francis as lost, I have stored for thee at home:

           Rise, clasp My hand, and come."

This is the ultimate message of true mysticism. God alone is real. Realising Him is true fulfilment. We can realise Him only when we seek Him exclusively. We can certainly approach God for anything- say a second house, a third car! But how wise is the person who gets an audience with the King to ask for  apples?

Sri Ramakrishna used to say: the mother keeps the child at play with many toys, when she has to do her household chores.. But when the child wants the mother, it throws away all the toys, and just cries for the mother. The mother then stops whatever she may be doing, and rushes to the child. God, the Universal Mother is also like that! She has allowed us to amuse ourselves with the toys in the world. But if we want her, we have to discard all the toys, and cry for her! She will come!. "O Lord, if I cry I can get you", sang the 8th century Tamil poet-saint Manikkavachakar.

That we should seek God , and God alone, is illustrated by a telling incident in the Mahabharata. When it becomes certain that war cannot be avoided, both sides decide to seek the assistance of Krishna who is a power centre, besides being related to both, Duryodhana representing Kauravas and Arjuna for the Pandavas reach Krisna's place, more or less at the same time, but Duryodhana arriving first. He finds Krishna asleep, and sits at his head. A short while later, Arjuna arrives, and sits at his feet. When Krishna wakes up and opens his eyes, his sight falls first on Arjuna. Then he realises that Duryodhana is also present. They state the purpose of their visit. Krishna says he has a large army but he himself will not take a weapon and fight. It is for them to choose between him and the army. Duryodhana claims the first choice as he came first.. But Krishna says he saw Arjuna first; besides, he being younger, should get the first choice. Arjuna chooses Krishna, to the immense relief and delight of Duryodhana, who gets the army. True to his word, Krishna becomes Arjuna's charioteer. But Arjuna's side wins the war.

This very clearly illustrates the principle. Even God's grandeur is nothing before God himself. It shows Arjuna wanted  Krishna himself, not his army. It also illustrates the humility necessary to approach God- Arjuna sits at the feet, which  is so symbolic in Hindu lore. Duryodhana sitting at the head indicates his ego. In any case, in Krishna's presence, each got what he wanted! But he who chooses God alone gets victory!

The Hound of Heaven is sublime poetry. It cannot-should not- be read at a time. Mysticism is such that it may not appeal to all, or always.. Over the years, as we evolve and mature, we see new meaning in it. 

I do not think it teaches any particular philosophy or theology. But we can interpret it many ways. People have seen in it the mystical experience of the old Jewish Prophets. It has reminded people of Psalm 139. I as  Hindu am touched by its personal approach. I am also thrilled by its mention of 'feet'. Hindus especially venerate the Feet of God. We are asked to sit "at the feet" of Teachers to learn. In the standard Hindu temple icon, almost all deities point one hand to the Feet, showing that is the final Refuge. "Lord, Your Feet are even more Hallowed than You", eulogises one ancient Tamil verse of the Sangam Age! (Pari Padal)

Thompson points to one more  Hindu nicety. He refers to the voice more instant than the feet. Yes, in the dark,we can determine our direction by the voice,even when we can't see! So, the voice of God acts as our light and sight!

This image of the hound is a grand addition to the monkey-cat imagery. The young monkey has to catch the mother and hold her firm; the cat has to carry the kitten; but the hound will pursue and catch the victim! Yes, God will not leave and abandon us, even if we run away!

Organised religion  has made the quest for God a matter of institutional formality. Here is Francis Thompson telling us that we may experience it personally, individually, uniquely. Does not  this message carry tremendous hope in modern times?