Yugadarshana, an anthology of articles on Ramakrishna-Vivekanandaby Kuvempu
Edited by H.N. Muralidhara
Sri Ramakrishna Ashrama, Mysore, Rs.75
Perhaps no other writer has been as fortunate as Kuvempu, either before or after him, to attract so much critical attention. He has been our contemporary thinker/writer for over 70 years now. Some of the issues that were raised about his writings seem to be coming up again and again for discussion. The present book by H.N. Muralidhara is a case in point. Yugadarshana attempts to put together some of the seminal philosophical / spiritual writings of Kuvempu to enable us to relook at his literary writings from a different perspective. The subject of these writings is neither art nor literature. It is about the life and work of people who influenced Kuvempu deeply – mainly Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Swamy Vivekananda and Swamy Shivananda. And that Kuvempu came under the influence of them is the focal point here.
The twelve essays here are drawn from Shashtinamana , Vibhooti Puje , Vichara Krantige Aahwaana and some are forewords to the books written about the spiritual leaders. The appendices consist of poems and brief writings (which resemble pamphlets) meant to stimulate youngsters about Hinduism and Indian nationalism. If read in isolation, most of these might appear to be lofty in style and probably look too ideal. The present generation might easily mistake them to be an exhibition of right winged oratory. But the inherent content of these writings and what they stand for negate such a view completely. Tolerance and acceptance of other faiths with respect, unity, coordination and cohabitation of all religions, respect for the primordial human soul.. are deemed to be the tenets of ‘secularism’. These are said to be the products of ancient learning of sages ( rishi samvedane ). This is a land where both a theist and an atheist can coexist and thus make human life most important. Vivekananda waged a war not only against western materialism and a blind faith in it but also against issues related to inequalities perpetrated by the priestly class within India. It is said that the applications of these are found in the political struggle of Mahatma Gandhi.
Muralidhara’s introduction is an important part of the book apart from G.S. Shivarudrappa’s note, “Ramakrishna-Vivekananda mattu Kuvempu: Ondu Praveshike” which was published earlier and has been reprinted here. The introduction reads like an abstract for reading Kuvempu from a particular perspective. Muralidhara believes that Kuvempu has to be read in the context of socio-cultural displacements during his time. As it is well known, Kuvempu is the one who christened the new Kannada literary movement of early twentieth century as ‘Navodaya’. Though BMSri’s translated work – “Inglish GeethegaLu” is supposed to be the harbinger of the new tradition in Kannada literature, in the context of ‘visionary’ writers like Kuvempu, PuTiNa and Da.Ra. Bendre, who sustained the movement throughout, his ‘English slant’ to Kannada literature, gained only a few followers. Most of the representative writers of Navodaya had a belief in a ‘meta-life’ (lokottara) beyond the comprehensible world, which according to them, was more comprehensive and more purposeful. That understanding is actually their ‘visions’ which came under their scrutiny in their creative writings.
It is said that Kuvempu always wanted to be identified as a visionary (darshanika) rather than a writer of eminence. He had a vision (darshana) of life envisaged through his writings. The reading of Kuvempu envisaged by Muralidhara insists on the centrality of ‘ideas’ (‘vycharikathe´) in his writings. Co-ordination (samanvaya), upliftment of all (sarvodaya) and comprehensive view (poorna drushti) are the important tenets of Kuvempu’s poetic vision (kavi darshana). It is through that ‘vision’, we need to construct our understanding of Kuvempu.
It is to be remembered that some Navodaya writers (including Kuvempu) were criticized by many Navya writers for their eloquence of words which contradicted their realistic concerns of life. Though Ananthamurthy during his last years had mellowed in his criticism of Kuvempu, his earlier observations on his writings are still valid. Further, it would also be interesting to study why Kuvempu, the author of Jalagara and Shudra Tapaswi, had to be inspired by Vivekananda and not by Ambedkar. Could it be the case that the locus of his inspiration is ‘virtuous’ brahminism devoid of the priestly practices? Did he intend to reformulate Brahmin idealism instead of discarding it? If so, how different is this approach from that of the revivalists who are appropriating him as they have done with Ambedkar? These issues are to be addressed seriously while re-reading Kuvempu and that would be the real tribute to the great writer.
