In Drishtantoist Sight, Journey for Enjoying Poetic Beauty (Second Chapter)

Lines, residence and function of a poem

Here I will present my speech on lines, residence and function of a poem. Before it I should light the derivative definition of Drishtantoism. Drishtantoism is English translation of the Bengali word, Drishtantobad. As the word ‘Drishtantobad’ is formed by the two words- Drishtanto and Bad, the derivative definition of Drishtantoism is present in the joint family of the two words. In Bangla, `Drishtanto’ means example, precedence, evidence, comparison etc. Drishtanto is also the similar reference and description of proving accuracy of something. And Drishtanto is formed by the two Bengali words, Drishto and Anto. Drishto means `seen’, ‘noticed’, ‘observed’, ‘visible’, ‘manifest’. Anto means ‘nature’, ‘exact intention’. Sometimes anto is also used as suffix in the last of verbal root to mean present progressive tense. By the meanings, to understand Drishtanto, seen or visible nature of a thing firstly is indicated. If we collect ‘Anto’ as suffix in the last of verbal root, we understand secondly that the word is applicable for the things which are visible, examinable, and capable to be known or knowledgeable. To understand Bad, the English word, ‘Ism’ is appropriate word.

The essence of Drishtantoism is observed in the derivative meaning of the word, Drishtantobad. The philosophy advocates for the displayed and observed existence, or for the nature which is visible or observable. According to the philosophy, the thing which is materially changeable, transformable and presentable is useful or important. This is true too.

That is, importance of a thing depends on its changeableness or transformability. It is true that the test of truth and falsehood or right and wrong is applicable only for the thing which is materially presentable. For this, as the imagination or imaginary thing which is not realizable is staying at a distance from the question of truth and falsehood, without applying ‘true’ and ‘false’ Drishtantoists become answerless to it, and stay at a distance from it too. By the answerlessness about the thing, they indirectly consent to a man accepting it neither as true nor as false. So to speak in a word, they avoid such type of things.

The philosophy doesn’t side with the things. Or even it doesn’t think important matter opposing them too. If we oppose them, it is true that we admit their existence. Then it is indirectly proved that we support them. In this place, Drishtantoism is different from Charvaka, though the philosophy supports the philosophical concept of them (Charvaka): Anuman (A Sanskrit figure based on guessing akin to prosopopoeia or vision) can not be proof. But the philosophy like them doesn’t give impulse to man to use such type of concept challenging authoritativeness of any traditional religion. The difference is here. If we set eye on the two concept of the philosophy, we can understand that it is not so-called mind-independent realist philosophy like charvakaism: ‘neither theist nor atheist, but religious’ and ‘be good only for saving yourself and the world’. I have mentioned above being answerless to the unperciptable matters. By the word the teaching of answerless face of Buddha is not being highlighted too. Drishtantoism may be called an unceremonial religion (as none will be Vagoban by following Drishtantoism), doesn’t want to be a ceremonial religion through being answerless to any unperciptable matter or holding some ethical sentences. There are difference between the philosophy and Buddhist philosophy. The philosophy is not atheistic ( it doesn’t mean that the philosophy is theistic.), doesn’t give importance to reanimation like Buddhism. Without opposing, Drishtantoists avoid any unreal and unperciptable being. Admitting sorrowful world, the philosophy doesn’t say man to have Nirvana. For saving himself and the world with respect it makes a man conscious about his right and perfect behavior to them. Buddhism says that if a man becomes unworldly by having nirvana, he will get free from sorrow. And it says also, nirvana is such state that is unexplained by worldly experience. In this place, Drishtantoism says that man can not be unworldly in the familial world at all. And leaving world man can not stay anywhere. It also says that man has to keep safe him and the world by explaining all things of the world with the help of worldly experience. Here the word of Buddha is to be uttered: Attadipa bihorath, attosharona anonaya sharona (man can light his path, as he is sheltered by himself. Dependence creates problem). But Buddha would not know that degree of happiness and sorrow is inexpressible; and like happiness sometimes sorrow is enjoyable too. Drishtantoism doesn’t do business taking nature and degree of happiness and sorrow. In this place, the philosophy is different from the Lokayata philosophy which admits: Sensual happiness is the main purpose of human life. Drishtantoism is the philosophy which is not for happiness but for peace and merriment. However, I have presented the above speech so that I can show Drishtantoism as a different from other philosophies. Again the philosophy is also different from the western philosophical concept, Logical Positivism. The positivism opposes metaphysics and theology directly applying verification rules. In this place, Drishtantoism avoids the two without opposing them. The philosophy thinks that if a writer attempts to continue literary or philosophical expedition following them, the society is being hunted by backwardness and unexpected motion. The society will feel the same affair, if a writer opposes them. The logical positivists (Moritz Schlick, Alfred Jules Ayer, Rudolf Carnap, Hans Hahn, Phillip Frank, Ludwig Wittgenstein etc.) of Vienna Circle said that the language of metaphysics is meaningless, a charm of fake word. These are only expression of the feeling to know the absolute being that may be applied in music, poetry and arts.

…the sentences of metaphysics are pseudo-sentences which on logical analysis are proved to be either empty phrases or phrases which violate the rules of syntax. Of the so-called philosophical problems, the only questions which have any meaning are those of the logic of science. To share this view is to substitute logical syntax for philosophy (R. Carnap, Logical Syntax of Language; P. 8). The function of logical analysis is to analyse all knowledge, all assertions of science and of everyday life, in order to make clear the sense of each such assertion and the connections between them. One of the principal tasks of the logical analysis of a given proposition is to find out the method of verification for that proposition (R. Carnap, Philosophy and Logical Syntax; P. 9-10)

Drishtantoists doesn’t oppose metaphysic showing it as charm of fake word, even doesn’t expect its use in any creative field, neither philosophy nor literature. Logical positivists judged society-saving ethical propositions as meaningless matters too complaining their unverifiableness. Drishtantoism says for such type of language using that is of real sentences, not formed by meaningless sentences, and that is ethical for good people, neither opposing nor supporting to metaphysics. Here I can refer the word of Michel Foucault:……Here I have to speak that some logical positivists directly or indirectly express their mental inclination to metaphysical and theological matters. British philosopher Alfred Jules Ayer said the matter in his essay, ‘What I saw when I was dead’: “What I should have said is that my experiences have weakened, not my belief that there is no life after death, but my inflexible attitude towards that belief.” It may be said that drishtantoism is the new philosophy, influenced by the above mentioned philosophies or theories, of releasing lives from unreal matters, indicates undisturbing and unimpeded environment. We have gotten a presage from Jibonanonda Das that some poets of the time will see the world by the light of such new philosophy. He said,

New desire comes, new time comes

old sun loses its light,

by new comers!

What is poetry, how does it come out, where is it, what has it’s relation with material world and mental realm? He gave drishtantoist answer of the questions indirectly by saying this:

“পৃথিবীর সমস্ত জল ছেড়ে দিয়ে যদি এক নতুন জলের কল্পনা করা যায়— তা হলে পৃথিবীর এই দিনরাত্রি, মানুষ ও আকাক্সক্ষা, সৃষ্টির সমস্ত ধুলো, সমস্ত কঙ্কাল ও সমস্ত নক্ষত্রকে ছেড়ে দিয়ে এক নতুন ব্যবহারের কল্পনা করা যেতে পারে যা কাব্য— অথচ জীবনের সঙ্গে যার গোপনীয় সুড়ঙ্গ লালিত সম্পূর্ণ সম্বন্ধ : সম্বন্ধের ধূসরতা ও নতুনতা। সৃষ্টির ভিতর মাঝে এমন এক শব্দ শোনা যায়, এমন বর্ণ দেখা যায়, এমন আঘ্রাণ পাওয়া যায়, এমন মানুষের বা এমন অমানবীয় সংঘাত লাভ করা যায়— কিংবা প্রভূত বেদনার সঙ্গে পরিচয় হয়, যে মনে হয় এই সমস্ত জিনিসই অনেকদিন থেকে প্রতিফলিত হয়ে কোথায় যেন ছিল; এবং ভঙ্গুর হয়ে নয়, সংহত হয়ে, আরো অনেকদিন পর্যন্ত, হয়তো মানুষের সভ্যতার শেষ জাফরানি রৌদ্রালোক পর্যন্ত, কোথায় যেন রয়ে যাবে; এইসবের অপরূপ উদ্গীরণের ভিতর এসে হৃদয়ে অনুভূতির জন্ম হয়, নীহারিকা যেমন নক্ষত্রের আকার ধারণ করতে থাকে তেমনি বস্তু-সঙ্গতির প্রসব হতে থাকে যেন হৃদয়ের ভিতর, এবং সেই প্রতিফলিত অনুচ্চারিত লেশ ধীরে ধীরে উচ্চারণ করে ওঠে যেন, সুরের জন্ম হয়; এই বস্তু ও সুরের পরিণয় শুধু নয়, কোনো কোনো মানুষের কল্পনা-মনীষার ভিতর তাদের একাত্মতা ঘটে— কাব্য জন্ম লাভ করে।”

I have already said that word or line is the body of a poem. By saying this, I didn’t mean then these are poem. And again then I meant that without these the reader can not search poem. Where is dwelling place of the poem, staying around words or lines? According to Drishtantoism, the poem stays in reader’s mind. When readers read any writing or some lines, if the writing or the lines become related to their feeling, if they (writing or lines) supply perceivable or knowable massage, if reader’s mind have feeling creating power from them, then the readers will think them poem-supplying sentences. In this place, the poet is considered as a reader too. To some pensive readers, the poems whose scope is limited to its’ lines, is an example of a degenerated poem. Comparing the poems with ‘resonanceless voice’, Khondakar Asraf Hossain uttered in his free-prose, Kobitar Auntorjami (কবিতার অন্তর্যামী), “A good poem will sound in conscience or in string of heart for long time like a dish-bell. The tone that the poet didn’t expect will sound too, will become encircled as the echo replied by articulated sound of mountain-cave….The poem will touch any area either of emotion or of cogitation; by it any place can be lighted, clod of stone may be felled down at any where.” The poem must touch at any border of cogitation, as it is a mental matter. But he has compared the poem with gold. According to Drishtantoism, poem is not gold, may be its’ related glistening; poem is not bell, may be its’ prolonged sound. How ever, I would like to say for staying of a poem. Because of having more meanings of its words, and for having difference of reader’s perception, some definite lines may hint more poems. The feelings that, at the time of taking text, become active are totally personal. Doesn’t it prove where a poem stays in? Poem must stay in reader’s mind. Ferdinand de Saussure has guessed the matter of implication created by lines or language in reader’s mind. He said that man is not only bound to economics or sexuality but also to language. I have mentioned the difference of personal feeling before. Why do we get it? This is natural, and for it taking help from ‘competence’ and ‘performance’ (proposed by Noam Chomsky) I can say that socialization and surrounding of men are variegated, as they stay in different position. Linguistic behavior of a person depends on his mental state, experience and vision. In this place we can also consider Saussure-proposed ‘Paradigm’. When we will feel a line, we ought to give importance to ‘time’ as a matter. It is also remarkable that when the line was created, what the situation was presented, by the main word of the line what would be understood and at present what it means. Such as, ‘Razakar’, a very touchy Arabic word, means ‘Volunteer’. But at present it has took place in Bengalis mind as a word of joint meaning of these words, ‘Juddhaporadhi’ (war-criminal), ‘swodesh-birodhi’ (the persons who hate their birth land, the constitution of residing state), ‘dharmo-bayabosai’ (the persons who use religion for their own interest or for saving themselves from war-criminality), ‘dharmo-apobayakkhakari’ (the persons who misinterpret their religion) etc. Notice the matter of ‘Astik’ (theist) and ‘Nastik’ (atheist) too. The words are originated from the Sanskrit verbal root, ‘Aus’. ‘Aus’ means ‘to exist’ and from it ‘Austi’ (being) has been originated. The person who has belief in being (here being means thing or real matter) is called ‘Astik’. And the person who has no belief in the being is called ‘Nastik’. According to this, we can say that the realist is theist and the idealist is atheist. But, Jotin Sarkar said that Brahmanism-following authoritarian of ancient India circulated the misinterpretation of the two words in society. They used to say them Nastik who trust the realistic concept, ‘thing is true’ and used to say them Astik who trust the idealistic concept, idea is true’. Sarkar has mentioned in his article, ‘Nastikata-Murdabad, Biggayanchetina Jindabaad’ that it was crafty attempt of Brahmanism-followers. On theism and atheism their words became tightly fastened in man’s mind: the persons who believe in God, they are Astik (theist); and the persons who don’t believe in God, they are Nastik (Atheist). It is mentionable that Sarkar has said in his another article, ‘Prokritir Prokrito Tatporjo O Amader Sangskriti’: Brahmanist authors of ancient India named the men Astik who would follow the propagated canon and teachings of Veda and Vedic literature, and named the men Nastik who would not follow them. He said that there was no excessive relation between theism-atheism and divine belief then (that means the matter of theism and atheism would not depend on God then). We can also consider the matter of the word, ‘Kali’ (Color). Once upon a time we would understand black color to mean Kali. But at present it is used to indicate all color. That is, Kali means all color instead of black. Again a word can present many meanings because of its’ multifarious use.

‘His behavior is uncommonly good’.

‘His behavior is uncommonly impolite’.

In the two sentences, ‘uncommonly’ is implicated in two ways. If we do not know occult nature of the word, we won’t discover real meaning of the two sentences. If there is circumstance, the feeling that is absent in a line, can be spoken by a reader; he may present reason for his feeling too. For this, Roland Barthes has given importance to readers than writers. He said that the purpose or intention of a writer is unimportant but text and only the readers will discover lesson of the text. We also find the same in the speeches of Jonathan Culler and Jacques Derrida. Culler said that the value of any text depended not on its meaning or significance but on the lesson of its reader. Choice, study, view-point, environmental situation of readers must be considerable at the time of collecting lesson. According to Derrida’s deconstruction, we often present self-realization by reason of FREE PLAY of language and words leaving the main text of philosophy or literature. To him, language is being deconstructed in this way. However, I want to say that like language the explanation of poem is mind-dependent too. The poem is best presentation of language, sometimes can keep power making reader body-unconscious by moving mental word. It depends on mind, can not stay beyond mind. Only line stays beyond mind. The line is some thing-related symbols of external world, is a powerful matter finding out poems from reader’s mind. We can also say about mind dependence of a poem applying the critical scale of Kant. Here it is mentionable that critical theory is an epistemological scale. Poem is not of epistemological matter, but of the feeling that can create a beautiful coating in mind. I have said before that line would give the creative power. “Advertisement, tied over chest, is tottering like dropped mountain” (বুকে বাঁধা বিজ্ঞাপন পতনোন্মুখ ফোঁটাজল পর্বত). Here there is no knowledge, the thing that is in the line is a picturesque situation presented with the help of example, a technical work of presenting real world colorfully. ‘Dhaka is the capital of Bangladesh’. It is of knowledge, but can not be a line of poem. Using the scale of Immanuel Kant, I can say that two kinds of matter, e.g. internal and external, are active in a poem. External element (circumstance-indicated line or line like different circumstances) enters in mind through the way of sense. By doing active imaginary power or memory power on the element if we can present the special state that is inclined to beauty and perceptible, we will have poem. ‘Tied over chest’, ‘advertisement’, ‘tottering’, ‘dropped’ and ‘mountain’- every word of the serial is a wordy symbol of some open places and circumstances. Here what is the role of mind? Only powerful mind can present likeable translation ordering them on the base of external causality. That is to say, when external element and internal element will become united, we will find a translation of line or lines. Here it is mentionable that Drishtantoism doesn’t receive spiritualism fully by admitting the existence of both internal and external worlds. If this is, what portion has it taken from the thought? Like spiritualism Drishtantoism admits cordially too that literature is a matter of charm and sweetness. But it is said that when we can bring the literature in supernatural (unworldly) position, it will have the intended flavor effectively established, or when it becomes flavoury, we must consider it as supernatural matter. Especially For this speech given by spiritualist Drishtantoist doesn’t take spiritualism fully. Abhinavagupta said

“Because of being tied with lovers’ heart the love which arises in lover mind is not of wit (humor). So it is measured and natural (worldly). For this, it is a hindrance of sense of humor.”

To him, if we can make the worldly matter unworldly by doing ‘sarbohridayhridaysangbadi’ (touching or moving all hearts), we will have humor. As origin of ‘Sahittyo’ is from Sanskrit ‘Sahito’, he may want to say that the matter of humour comes out when the love is being applied on another. Giving importance to a Karika (a short couplet having various meanings) of Dhannyaloka that is written depending on the grief of Balmiki (Balmiki is the most ancient poet of Bengali literature), bearing the arrow-pain of copulated curlew, he said that, “It must be supported that the grief is not of the mind of the hermit. If it were so, the hermit would have become sorry because of curlew’s grief, he would not have written the verse with compassionate humour. He said that without having kept mateless curlew’s grief in worldly stage the hermit had turned it into compassionate humour for own entertainment. By which process some scholars become tried to make worldly mood unworldly, Drishtantoism doesn’t support this. If a lover’s love becomes touching or moving all hearts, according to Drishtantoism it may not be considered as unworldly humour. The philosophy takes the process as worldly humour too. To the philosophy, at the time of doing sex, the joy is gotten by a couple that is not unworldly matter. The joy is worldly, it may be said an unexplainable joy. The poem makes unselect joy-world. By the speech, we cannot utter the unselect matter as unworldly matter. If we set a poem in unworldly stage, it is easy to mind it Brahma-related. And by it, we can judge the poem Brahma-like. But the judge is not suitable for the poem. I have said before that the world of poem is not the world of Maya but the world of unselect joy. As Drishtantoism doesn’t trust on Atma, we feel the difference. Drishtantoism has trust in mind except soul. To the philosophy; soul has been presented by some crafty person for their own interest. The philosophy, to understand mind, refers the consisted form of memory and imagination, I have mentioned before. But we can not say the thing animal formed by mind and body. According to it, if a thing has an active vivacity or animation, is to be considered as an animal. When the vivacity of an animal becomes inactive, it must be turned into / transferred to inanimate thing. In this place, we can find similarity of it to Buddhism. However, I want to say on the residence of poem: line is not poem; it may be said link-creating mediator of poem and reader. And poem is a mind-dependent matter which lies only in reader’s inner world. At the time of enjoying it’s beauty, a reader must not be spiritualist to a great extent.

I have already mentioned that lines of a poem must be fluent or fine like a guiltless rope. I have said so considering the formative structure of a poem. Here I will present other beauties of it. About line of a poem, it is common that the line must be beautiful from any views. Lines of a poem is beautiful too by dint of it’s word/words. I have said before that a poet’s valor is in having power to make the words and set it rightly in lines. As a waiter for beauty, not only for mental enjoyment but for social comfort, is it his responsibility to practice it within poem? Here a question arises naturally, what do we mean by ‘ugly’? Sometimes abusive words are well and make men to be vanguard for proper and right purpose.


  1. April 5th, 2011

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: