I live a death
On the name of life
I live a hate
On the name of love
I live among false
In the sanctum of truth
I live an aphony
On the name of words
On the name of feelings
On the name of thoughts—
Do you live life in fragments?
Like I live in shattered broken glass pieces
Do you die of growing falsity in man?
Like I die often failing in life’s combat
Do you merge alike sinking ferry
Like I used to in my daily attempts of living
FRIEND! Can you understand?
What pricking of hearts means
What happens when you feel none around
Only dark mist beyond visions
Do you crave for stars
That fall from the sky
And just reside in eyes alike dreams
Do you ever grope something in dark
With hope of finding
And your search, when ends in
Desperation, farce and nothing at all
How do you live friend?
How do you live among these dead ?
Shaleen
9 comments:
Dear Shaleen
P oignant writing! A beautiful work of modern times, So Saddening, But Peacefully True, You have caught the essence of living our lives in this Poem! The conversational approach you have presented is beautiful ! Just Loved the paradox . It brought tears to my eyes.
But my dear Life is never too harsh. If it is thorny on one hand it also has roses on the other hand .Mind can make and mind can break. Why you r spreading the notion dat life is a bed of thorns ?If d whole world starts thinking in this way then colours will be out of our lives and every one will feel sad remorse and dejected . Is it the message you want to convey to d people ? Secondly now m wondering “wats d difference between a poetry and a prose ?”. It is really difficult to distinguish in d present scenario . Poet are going more free , adopting free verse away from parameters then wats d need of poetry ?
all d best
Didi Thanks for sharing your candid opinion on my poem(or a sad piece, you say)I really enjoyed reading your remark regarding the poem. It is as if some one elder one is reading the poem. I liked two things in your comment:
1. When you said: "It brought tears to my eyes." and
2: A very significant question you put up saying: "Poet are going more free , adopting free verse away from parameters then wats d need of poetry ?"
My point is;
Firstly, I achieved success in my aim as my poem touched you somwhere.
Secondly,I am a strong supporter of Art for Art's sake and have least inclination or interest in rousing morality or and didactic strain in poetry.
As you know Literature is the mirror of Time so Poetry is also can not be encircled in a particular circumference of generes like Lyric, ode, sonnet or epics. Our time is the time of race, competition and tiring business so poetry could not escape the effects of time rather it has vocalized itself in a timly manner.
Yes you are right there is no difference between prose and poetry now. In past few years the mushrooming growth of poets have proved this evermore and if this continus it is predictible that we will have much prose and and no poetry. But here another thing noticeable is that in every age people run against this stream and becomr the true inheritor of our age old generes, norms and values, and I cannot absolutely say that in future traditional poetry will extinct, we have so many contemporary poets like D C Chambial, Mahanand Sharma(who has recently passed away in Meerut), H Tulsi, R R Menon and much more who are have not forsaken the traditional generes of Poetry and are earning name and contributing to enrich the literature.
We can hope for best...
Wordsworth's assertion that Poetry is the outburst of spontaneous thoughts recollected in trainquality shoud be borne in mind and keep writing. Regards
Shaleen
You cant "live" a death..its a paradox and poetry is a aggregation of such paradoxes! Death brings an end to all that is "seen as living". Death gives freedom and hence can be in another way be interpreted as "birth". The soul suddenly sheds the luggage and becomes so free. Death is verily the truth. If you leave a "hate" in name of "love", that means you do not know the meaning of "love". Varieties of definitions in form of quotes have been given like"love is sacrifice", "love is giving and forgiving", but NO! Love is nothing of all these. Many of us confuse affection as love and hence when affection ends, reality bites. Love is dispassion. Love is a function of head. It is reasoning and discovering the root of things and then finding that all are same. Love if done superficially will always lead to a life of "hurt". Hence "back to roots" must be the slogan ! One does not even know "truth", how can one define "false"? Even the statements "God is Truth" is misleading. Where is God and how He is truth? That means is God a noun or verb? There are so many questions one has to answer before jumping into the debate of "truth" or "falsehood".
Revered DiDi,
Again thanks, my counterclaim to your hypotheses is jotted down here point wise:
At first; Before drawing self assumed definitions of Poetry one has to develop a rational approach to creative writing as well as has to be clear and without any haze;
My point is
1: Poetry "cannot be a paradox" and nor it "is an aggregation of such paradoxes!"
Rather know Poetry!! It is not the aggregation of paradoxes but it is 'the explication of paradoxes' or can be 'an exhibition of paradoxes which we live in our everyday life on the name of living, the poet in the poem has tried to capture the same..
2. The second point raised by you is some what ambiguous when you say firstly: Death brings an end to all that is "seen as living". and again say: 'Death gives freedom and hence can be in another way be interpreted as "birth". for on one hand death is interpreted by as seen as living and on the other it is interpreted as birth, please make it clear to yourself all these hypotheses like seen as living or interpreted death as birth do not seem confusing?Again for death cannot be interpreted as birth merely on the ground that it gives freedom for birth does not confer us freedom but entangle us in Maya as sages or seers say and prescribe several remedies called Bhakti, Gyan or Karma so that man, by acquiring excellence in it my be able to break all the trammels of living and attain Nirvana. Again note that soul does not shed luggage and be so free otherwise we would not be saying some supranormal as the Sanskar of previous birth.
3. Another assertion made by your when you say: If you live a "hate" in name of "love", that means you do not know the meaning of "love". I dismiss this argument for none can gauge other’s love or hate for it so much a personal feeling that even true lovers fail to know its intensity. The thing which is so personal and concerned with individuality be comprehended by critics like you who assume with no proof of it. Take the reference of the poem where the protagonist say that “I live a hate on the name of love” which should be read as the protagonist has applied semantic deviation in the poem by saying the he has lived hate or obtained hate whenever he tried to love others. It is nowhere said or claimed that Poet or protagonist is a sage or a very enlightened soul who is above the pricks and piercing of the human behavior of the fellow persons nor he has degraded love nor tried to discard it rather he, peeling off the multiple layers of human consciousness, attempts to exhibit the dilemma called love in our everyday life. It is true that we love and do not get the same back but it is also true that we don’t help loving despite its untoward repercussions.
4. Please try to know what reality and what is love in the real term of sense is. It is again conceptualized wrongly when you say: “Many of us confuse “affection” as love and hence when affection ends, reality bites.” Is it really affection that bites us or our expectations in love? The poet here again points out such love mingled with expectation that leads him to hate. Please be sure again when you say: “Love is a function of head.” Is it really a function of Head or Heart? Or does it has anything to do with reasoning or searching the roots Does this conception of love is again not circumscribing the one which is beyond limits or definitions?
5. I agree with your comment when you say: Love if done superficially will always lead to a life of "hurt". But note again that poet has nowhere tried to project any superficial or superfluous rather he has nothing to do with its pragmatic frame rather he wishes to reveal his self experiences in his own way. It is possible that the people must have lived in the reality called love or have been betrayed by the reality called love or it is again true that he may be theorizing all these thing; reality would again be impalpable. Here I remember a fragment of a poem where poet says:
“Farz karo hum Ahle wafa hon farz karo Deevane hon
Farz karo ye dono Batein Jhooti hon afsane hon
Farz karo ye rog ho jhoota, jhooti preet hamari ho
Farz karo is preet k rog me saans bhi humpe bhari ho”
Didi it is our way of thinking which makes our vision to look at the things. We look to a thing and create our standpoint as truth but the same standpoint may be false for the other. Each human being in this life of ours is unique so their tales will be unique altogather. There is no single formula for all. Yet Love is such a thing which binds the humans:
Therefore I wrote somewhere and even questioned: “What is that which binds you and me / what is that surges between you and be/ Is it love?
It is nowhere claimed or theorized that I know love or I do not know it. Again I quote here the lines from my loving poet Dr R K Bhushan who says:
“I live amidst/ Haunting homes, mounting domes;/Honking horns, conking morns;/ Vaunting bones, taunting tones;/Clanking China, whanging Diana.(Sentinels of the Soul,p.25)
Where please again be sure in interpreting that the poet has something to do with ‘Haunting homes or mounting domes, he might have seen the things felt in his own way and later on expressed it in his own peculiar style. Though I don’t wish to moralize but I again wish to put before you the lines of Dr O P Bhatnagr who says:
We may go round and round the idea
Do we ever go round and round the thought?
Our vision should be on thought but note that poets never write under single umbrella of of single vision but here I again remember that Poets write in some “inspired moments” which you may say God creates or any atheist say Nature creates. But It is undoubtedly true that Poetry can not be a labored exercise or any poet can write anything but say things make the poets write.
6. Didi! when you question: One does not even know "truth", how can one define "false"? My answer to your question is another question which you raised to me by saying: If you leave a "hate" in name of "love", that means you do not know the meaning of "love". Here in the former statement you question me and in the latter statement you made self made assumption about love and hate. How you said this without prior proof? I think if you try to be clear what you said or assumed earlier in your own way and later on questioned me for the same? But I have answer to this question also; Between True and False I assume (if you agree) I must be knowing one thing because If I don’t know the both what I know? Possibly you will say I know false or I live in false but be sure here if I know any of the two I make hypothesis of the other. But If I don’t know either I have no right to say at all. Please note and I hope you might have smelt nowhere that in the poem mentioned the poet is going to define any Truth or False but he is vacillating between two poles or opposites which are is own self created. Here again you probably smelt otherwise for the poet’s state of mind in the poem is somewhat dubious so he like shuttle cock is feeling both kicks and kisses.
I think my observations will some be helpful to develop your understanding of poetry. I think that creative writing is a psychological necessity which soon acquires aesthetic dimension and becomes a source of pleasure or pain or creates pleasures and pains in reader’s bosom. I am again thankful to your personal views on my poetry. Thanks and regards.
Shaleen
Dear brother
"Convenience" has always been a tool of negation and the answer here also proves the same. The author is committed to "duality" hence he has no choice but to take the banana and its peel - laugh over the banana and shed tears over the peel, though effort used in procuring the banana is larger than the output received.
Finally all of us get into this debate of "heart" vs. "head". For all practical purposes they are same. Feelings or emotions come due to secretion of hormones; for eg. Oxytocin is the "love hormone". And secretion of hormones is again directed by how the nerve cells in the head react. So its all connected. Hence if only we can get our hormonal secretion in control, well the feelings will cease and life will be just a journey of facts and reasonings. Why I used this particular example is because I wanted to drive home the point that for all practical purposes "head" and "heart" are same. If love originates from heart, then how does it affect oxytocin secretion? The hormones can only secrete when a signal is recieved from the central nervous system that is the brain or head and hence it can be logically argued that even we "feel" love in head. So when everything is in "head", then it must be used to think and go deep into matters rather than getting carried away by superficial importance.
Duality in any form always exists at the surface level. In depth, it vanishes and then people wont live in "hate" thinking its "love" and blah blah...
So march on to the depths !
With Lots of Love and Best Wishesbg
Well I liked this response Keep reading me. regards.
Shaleen
your blog is very nice and interesting.
thanks parul
I hope I shall lay my hands too on your book so as to get a better glimpse of the people, the Indians, whom I have always admired.
Post a Comment