[రచయిత ఆర్. సుదర్శనానికి కొడవటిగంటి కుటుంబరావు తన ఆలోచనా పద్ధతులను తెలుపుతూ రాసిన మూడు ఉత్తరాలను వారి శ్రీమతి ఆర్. వసుంధరాదేవి గారి సహకారమూ అనుమతితో మొదటిసారిగా ఈమాట పాఠకులకు ప్రత్యేక కానుకగా ప్రచురిస్తున్నాం. వసుంధరాదేవిగారికి మా కృతజ్ఞతలు- సం.]
1, 4th Cross street, Trustpuram, Madras 24.
29-5-78
Dear Sri Sudarsanam Garu,
మీ ఉత్తరాలూ, పుస్తకమూ శనివారం అందాయి. పుస్తకం గురించి నా అభిప్రాయం ఎందుకు కోరారో తెలియలేదు. నేను చాలా low level thinker in philosophy. Materialist outlook తో పైకి పోవాలని చూస్తున్న వాణ్ణి. మీరు higher philosophies అన్నీ కిందికి దించి జీవితానికి అన్వయింప జూస్తున్నారు. మీ పుస్తకంలో ఉన్న dozens of arguments, interpretations, symbolisms నాకు బొత్తిగా అయోమయం. నాకు బాబాలంటే చాలా contempt. వాళ్ళ search తో నేనెన్నడూ thrill కాలేదు. నా mundane level లో నేను వాళ్ళ శక్తులను నమ్మినప్పటికీ, నేను ఏ శక్తినీ – విద్యుచ్ఛక్తి తో సహా – ఆరాధించటానికీ సిద్ధంగా లేను. In short all my effort is to convert the so called sublime to something earthy. I will find sublimity in the earthy. భౌతికవాది కాకపోవటానికి మీరు చెప్పిన కారణం నాకు సబబుగా కనబడలేదు. Mind can not be conscious of itself unless it is being acted upon or acting upon the rational world. When it is just reflecting the outer world it is not at all aware of itself. When it tries to find out what it is thinking the thought is disrupted. I take these few propositions as proved (for my needs that is).
ఆర్ సుదర్శనానికి కొకు రాసిన
ఉత్తరం పే.1, 29-05-1978
I said I detest Babas & so forth not only because they make the world superstitions in common people but their powers, if any, are never used for the least social uplift. With their selective favors they provoke the ego in their Bhaktas. For me the atmosphere they create is indescribably disgusting.
Generally when I read literature I try to see if it contributes anything new to my social experience. Most unfortunately your book does not seem to do it for me though I like some of your casual observations which make you a writer of some depth. I don’t understand the more important characters like the doctor. This may be one reason why the book does not contribute to my experience. Also, some of the situations look manipulated. And I can’t avoid the feeling that in spite of various efforts to think big the narrator seems to be drifting in the dark to a large extent. Of course, that gave you the chance of discussing a lot of philosophy of one sort or the other.
I must have now made it very clear that my opinion of the book is not of much value to you. If I had known more of the subjects you dealt with than you do, my opinion could have been authoritative. As it is it can be only my personal reaction – not even opinion.
Kindly convey my best wishes & compliments to Mrs. R.S. on her award for her book.
Your affly,
K. Kutumbarao
Logical conclusion: Mind can never be superior to matter.
Now I must confess that I believe in the other mind sub – or un – conscious which can be aware of everything. Probably you believe that meditation or some other means of opening up this mind ( I call it super-conscious) will achieve what you consider “unity of mind and matter” and what I understand as complete comprehension of matter. Probably you are right, since one western lady who got in to the habit of going in to trances confessed that in the trance she “knew everything”.
Still I have a couple of doubts about this. 1. knowing with the subconscious can not serve the purpose of knowledge which is a monopoly of the cerebral cortex – the conscious mind. So much so when a mathematical prodigy gives the 7th root of a large number you have to spend hours to check up whether it is correct. (Now the computers do it quicker than the prodigy!). See how a “miracle” is being duplicated by a machine!
ఆర్ సుదర్శనానికి కొకు రాసిన
ఉత్తరం పే.4, 29-05-1978
In this connection I have to make an honest confession. The so-called scientific (objective) way of acquiring knowledge is the dullest, slowest and mos sluggish process compared to intuition, inspiration, second sight, sixth sense or whatever. But I also want to assert that this was the only way by which man could achieve social evolution, externalize the powers he lost through biological evolution and become civilized. The primitives to whom thought and matter was one and the same, whose subconscious was extremely active, utterly failed to achieve social progress even over millennia. Now, thanks to the objective method, we have beaten all animals – almost all – at their own game (flying to random guidance).
I am afraid I do not know what advaitic “experience” is. As for the individual point, today it is marginally subjective with exceptions of psychic mediums, prodigies and other “miracle matter”. Most of their life, their good and their evil depends upon the collective wisdom of the ages, many superstitions and social &political conventions under which the individuals live, enjoy or abhor their life. Their debt with the collective is incalculable. We can imagine what man would be but for the convention of language, collection of literature, progress of technology, not to speak of the thousand and one luxuries which were the fruit of collective & cumulative effort of at least the past 7,000 years (and presumably more – I want to leave the question of influences from the outer space open!).
Another doubt of mine is that the conscious and subconscious can not operate together. There is a contradiction between them which I an neither demonstrate nor prove otherwise. They can possibly arrive at two different types of truths. If this is really so, I would rather the conscious truth prevail. If not I will go mystic an repudiate all history and culture. I may not reconcile both. But, as you refer to your own experiences this entire paragraph may be by my “ram” belief. I will not deny any body’s real experience whether it is socially significant or not.
Your reference to the brain functioning on electromagnetic principles does not come in the way of my understanding of subjective & objective as I attribute them to two different minds confined to different regions of brian with a sort of automatic bridge between them (which we can’t operate at will).
The riddles of man & existence will not be solved in any case to the satisfaction of the conscious mind since its powers are limited though gradually expanding. Also my Mind Dimension concept is likely to make these riddles less baffling to some extent.
Did I give you an impression that I believe all Babas are frauds. My idea is even if the Babas have all the powers talked of, my outlook will not be influenced by them. This outlook is frankly mundane, interested in the collective effort of man in all ages. My greatest spiritual satisfaction is that I am a drop in the ocean of humanity. This is perfectly true. Meditating on the mysteries of matter and trying to find reasons why the space-time sciences fail to explain them gives me the greatest pleasure. I do hope to collect a pebble or two on the shores of the ocean of knowledge. I make sure to pick them from the earth, not pluck them from a high.
My interest in para-psychology is with regard to Mind Dimension. Some people mistook it for my interest in spirits, in which I incidentally believe, but only as a materialist. I am also being taken to task by my liberally minded Marxist friends. I can’t help them if they do not understand what I write and why I write of.
About your novel what I wrote is what any lay reader would probably feel. You see there is a socialist who never seems to worry about social inequalities &injustices but is interested in the “higher” philosophies of life & the Babas. What I said about a book being a (vicarious) experience is also true. I never thought of denying the intellectual effort put into the writing of it.
ఆర్ సుదర్శనానికి కొకు రాసిన
ఉత్తరం పే.8, 29-05-1978
About “chance” and its importance on life I cannot agree with you. In my own personal life there are things which prima face look like fate. But I do not give the least importance to fate in the collective life (I do not mean just lovers & friends). The strength of collective life lies in ignoring “chance” and calculating probability. Otherwise no public institution can function. Yet in an individual’s life chance sometimes plays a very amazing part. In social enterprises like literature even a “coincidence” is looked upon as bad only.
Not only indian dualistic views are not of much worth in literature, but also individual assessments. When a certain number of persons independently or collectively come to the conclusion that a book is good, it begins to “live”. When written all books are new born babies. Unfortunately I did not see reviews of your book. Even the review you referred to was only about Mind being supreme.
I shall close now to catch the clearances which is in 20 mts. I hope I have told you what I wanted to say. I shall go through your book again in case I missed anything.
With regards
Your Affly,
K. Kutumbarao