Write a critical note on The Purpose with special reference to Nietzsche’s concept of Truth.

Assignment

Paper IV - Indian Writing in English

Topic:

♣ Write a critical note on The Purpose with special reference to Nietzsche’s concept of Truth.

Name: Kaushal H. Desai

Department: M.A. English department

Semester: I

Roll No: 17

Submitted To: Dr. Prof. Dilip Barad

(Head of English Department

M.K. Bhavnagar University)

◘ Write a critical note on The Purpose with special reference to Nietzsche’s concept of Truth.

►                               “This world is the will to power, and

  Nothing besides! And you yourselves are

                                     Also this will to power, and nothing besides!”

Here ‘The Purpose’ is a mythical play that deals with past and its show us many things like culture, religion and the ancient time of India. ‘Mythical story is always a fable of people’ it’s like a tell, that spreading our culture and its value. By the time of king’s rule we can say that some people are creates a kind of view towards it. But in the way myth is;

                               “By a myth ... I mean primarily a certain type of

         story in which some of the chief characters are

        gods or other beings larger in power than humanity.”

~ Northrop Frye

                Essentially the purpose of this thesis has been to propose an assessment or interpretation of T.P. Kailasam's "private mythology", of its genesis, its justification and its value. This mythology was, of course, largely influenced by the circumstances of his time. Indeed, we have noted earlier in this thesis that Northrop Frye looked on myth as a means of recounting "a society's history, religion or social structure"

• First of all let us look on T.P.Kailasam’s views on “The Purpose”:

            “Every poet has his private mythology”. The exercise demanded an initial understanding of differing perceptions of the conception of "myth" itself as also of his Kannada plays. We also noticed various factors involved in the transmission of myth, which assumed concrete shapes within disciplines such as anthropology, psychology, philosophy, and most of all, the literary world. The early sections of this thesis confirm that a myth may be told and retold, that it may be modified in order to discover different patterns of perception, that willy- nilly it participates in the power politics of a society. Therefore, in the context of British colonial India it formed an integral part of the very 'modernity' which resisted it. To recall, the period in which he wrote was characterized by conscious attempts of English-educated Indians to construct a well-defined nation, free from colonial slighting readings of India, so as to create new historical foundations for self-respect. Alongside also existed the need to cleanse the nation of superstitions and other baseless and pernicious social phenomena as the caste-system, child marriage and sati, and to modernize it simultaneously to suit the requirements of progress and independence. In this period, the chief model of modernity was undeniably the West, but merely imitating the 'alien culture' meant a loss of one's own identity and many Indian nationalists were keen to defend this identity. Therefore, an attempt was made by many to incorporate the West into this sense of self, but to retain at the same time the distinctive Indian-ness of this identity. Here, the past was a crucially important factor as it determined the identity of the nation and also its future.

• And Kailasam played his part in retelling the past to suit this complex motivation. Later on it’s more important to say that in T.P. Kailasam's effort to modernize traditional Indian myths for nationalistic purpose. The widely accepted definitional character of the present age, modernity, apparently attempts to distance itself from myth. The term modernity not only connotes a progressive outlook and receptiveness to new ideas but it also indicates the courage to challenge prominent archetypes of tradition such as myth. Paradoxically, however, both myth and modernity are always permeating each other in the process of evolving an ethos that is modern1. For instance, Indian writers of the nationalist period, in their attempt to construct a modern India, have re-deployed the myths of ancient India.

“These scenes and words you'll see and hear,
   I've seen and heard before,
  as king or priest, poltroon or peer,
 somewhere... Somewhen of yore!”

              - Kailasam

• Now, let us discuss the play first and then look on the Nietzsche’s concept of Truth;

♦ The Purpose

“The thing is certain to known and yet,

                                                                          It’s a way to do it and pleasure it.”

           

The specific reasons for the use of myth in Kailasam's work ‘The Purpose’ were examined what we have in his English plays is his small but significant effort to perceive and convey an original pattern of reinterpretation of traditional myths. For this purpose he looked afresh into some of the 'fringe' characters from the already existing powerful epics, Ramayana and Mahabharata. He attempted to bring into limelight marginalized or fringe characters such as Ekalavya and Karna. His plays definitely conjure up the way in which they could exile the conventional heroes like Arjuna or Bheema from their roles. Kailasam's uniqueness lies not merely in evoking our sympathies “If Youth but knew! If Age but could!” for Karna, Ekalavya, Bharata or Keechaka, but also in elevating them to the level of tragic heroes who were masculine, skillful and capable of achievement. In addition, Kailasam attempted to reveal in these heroes the features that the colonizers believed they possessed and which accounted for their superiority over Indians. The Purpose by T. P. Kailasam is a drama in two acts. The story is based on Adiparva from The Mahabharata. One can see a play of various "purposes" in Kailasam's mythological drama. For instance, The Brahmin's Curse is built on Karna's intention to prove his worth to the world, and Kailasam's purpose of questioning the treatment given to Karna.

The story moves around Eklavya and Arjuna and their purpose behind learning archery. Both want to learn archery from the great Dronacharya. Dronacharya teaches archery to Arjuna but can not accept Eklavya’s proposal because of his promise to Arjuna. Arjuna wants to become the great archer of the world. And Eklavya explains that he wants to learn archery to save lives of innocent animals. Arjuna’s purpose behind learning archery is self centered while Eklavya’s purpose is noble. In the 2^nd act Eklavya is far ahead than Arjuna in archery. In anger Arjuna says that he will tell everyone that Guru Drona has not kept his vow. To save his Guruji from social criticism Eklavya gives his thumb as gurudakshina.After giving his thumb in gurudakshina Eklavya realizes that his purpose behind learning archery was to save lives of innocent animals but now he cannot look into the eyes of the animals. The drama ends with Eklavya crying.

Here one scholar remarks that;

"To each his suffering! All are men

   Condemn'd alike to groan!
   The Tender for another’s pain;
   Th'unfeeling for his own!"

- Gray

 Keechaka depicts the protagonist and the ever-victorious hero's overriding purpose to act as protector of Sairandri, thus presenting what may be called 'the other side of the dispute1. And The Purpose highlights Ekalavya's ambition to become the greatest archer in the world in order to protect his fawns from the wolves, just as it highlights the questionable motivation of other 'heroic' characters in their shabby treatment of the 'low' born hero. These "purposes" of Kailasam can be linked to the broader purpose of the nationalist movement of India—to rewrite India's past as a foundation of the nationalistic feeling, movement and sense of self. For this purpose, like others, Kailasam was willing to subscribe to emerging concepts of modernity implicit in the redefinitions of qualities such as masculinity and adulthood and to 'search' for exemplars of them in India's own 'past'.

On one occasion Ekalavya wants to learn archery from Guru Drona but he deny it with tell that he just base to learn to kshatriya and Brahmina. For that the way is changed as here we see caste system. And later on Ekalavya learn archery from the representation of Guru Drona and Drona get to know that. In the time he got dillama in his mind that what to do? He is shudra boy and knows best archery. What will happen if other will know, in that way he think of destroy to Ekalavya’s path and for that Guru Drona ask his thumb for ‘Guru dakshina’

Drona:	(Aghast at the maimed hand of Ekalavya) Little Man! What have you done?
Ekalavya:	(Holding hack his tears with great effort and pointing to the severed thumb at Drona's feet) "Done"?, Gurujee? I have done no more than paid my Dakshina to you in poor token of my love and respect for you! Years ago. Gurujee, when I came to you, this noble Aryan Prince (points at Arjuna) said: "You, are only a nishaada...too poor to pay your Guru's dakshina!" (To Arjuna) I am still the same poor nishaada! And yet, poor as my dakshina is...it is good enough to stop the mouths of you and such as you from slandering my Gurujee's good name! My Gurujee has kept his promise! And you are now without doubt the greatest archer in the world! (POINTING OUT HIS THUMBLESS HAND) YOU SEE? EVEN IF I WANT TO I CANNOT SHOOT ANY MORE! (The effort of controlling his pain and his tears has been enormous; biting into his nether lip he makes a supreme effort to hold his tears back. Drona is so deeply affected that with closed eyes and trembling lips, he turns his face away. Arjuna, also genuinely affected, speaks to Ekalavya with real sorrow and sympathy in his voice.)

It’s a tragic way to lose a ‘dream’. And Kailasam seems to specifically emphasize the "purposes", the predicament and motivation of the fringe characters of mythology to highlight something of the tradition and of what was required for modernization of that tradition. He investigates their characters beyond the roles assigned to them by the authorized' versions of the great epics and he transforms them from passive victims to active participants, thus fitting them into western definitions of 'masculinity'. Kailasam simultaneously questioned the 'authority' of unfair projections operative for millennia which have led to our divided and unjust society. Also woven within these plays is Kailasam's purpose to reinterpret the past in the light of his contemporary reality. Yet in this process Kailasam employs a language of the past that took a language reasonably unfamiliar even to English-educated Indians. We have explored this apparent contradiction. While a thorough study of such phenomena across India in that time was beyond the scope of our study, Kailasam's choice is hardly isolated consider the form and language used by other writers like Aurobindo Ghosh and Toru Dutt in their explorations of the past. While analyzing Kailasam's preoccupation with marginalized characters as modern alternatives or exemplars for reshaping society, this dissertation has discovered more topics for study.

One of them is the construction of women, especially as mothers, in the lives of these heroes. The concept of motherhood for most nationalist writers was associated with the crucial role of procreating and rearing a special breed of men. This role extended to energizing the menfolk to reconstruct the 'motherland'. In Kailasam's play The Brahmin's Curse there is Raadha who assumes such a role for Karna, and in The Purpose, it is Ekalavya's mother. Surely, this aspect of Kailasam's plays calls for further study. The theoretical structure of arguments in this dissertation derives inspiration and ideas largely from critics such as Ashis Nandy, Uma Chakravarti and Partha Chatterjee, who have examined the impact of British colonization on India and its "peoples" through study of a few literary works conceived during the preindependence period. Their critical analysis includes study of writers like Raja Rammohan Roy, Dayanand Saraswati, Aurobindo Ghosh, Bankimchandra Chatterjee, and Vivekananda. But writers from the south such as B.M. Srikantia or T.P. Kailasam, who were also actively engaged in the reconstruction of Indian history and construction of the 'nation', seldom figure in such critical examinations.

• Coming across on the various aspects on “The Purpose”:

Yes, the great Ancient India, in that the play remarks that what wants in such accounts is not merely the inclusion of these writers but also a balanced view of India across its many parts active in the attempt to modernize India. Such notions based on equations of 'India' with 'Bengal' have existed long enough. Surely there is an acute need to locate and understand other writers using these extremely insightful frameworks. The present dissertation is only a small instance of such an attempt to critically evaluate writers like Kailasam in the broader framework of nationalist literature.

• Type of the expansion things like;

Here also we can highlights that the history which was under the Muslims for 60-70 years, the Peshwas for some time and the British for 150 years is causing much anxiety. To overcome this, we must create new histories. In the same speech, Kailasam speaks at some length about the need to construct Karnataka and also the other discrete regions of "Tamil", "Telugu" and "Kerala" cultures even before planning the construction of the Indian 'nation'. Kailasam's construction of the British and even the Muslims as the other becomes clear when seen from the nationalistic perspective. But it is not as evident why he 'others' the Peshwas. Also, what is his intention in strongly advocating the construction of other political regions before planning a nation? These queries perhaps could be answered only by closely locating Kailasam and his work within the larger dimensions of various other identity movements.

Hence, Kailasam's plays both in Kannada and English, call for greater attention. The present discussion is conveying of a good ancient time of summit. 

◙ The Purpose with special reference to Nietzsche’s concept of Truth:-

           

Actually the centrality of the will to power to Nietzsche’s philosophy is nearly undisputed, what remains contentious are how Nietzsche can defend the will to power in a manner consistent with his break from Western rationalism. As Linda L. Williams summarizes the tension: “ultimately, a wholly univocal answer to the question ‘What is will to power?’ is not only impossible but also undesirable”. She concludes, “interpreting will to power as Nietzsche’s empirical principle to which all experience can be reduced or interpreting will to power as Nietzsche’s science have the benefit of being in this world, but in my view they suffer from the implication that will to power somehow transcends “Nietzsche’s perspectivism”. The term ‘perspective’ comes from the language of vision. In The Purpose T. P. Kailasam’s Aklavya is greater than Arjuna. Though Eklavya is a Nishdha boy his purpose in learning archery is for the betterment of others. In actuality it is the duty of the prince but the prince, Arjuna is selfish.

In his most succinct formulation, Nietzsche calls the will to power the “essence of life”. Nietzsche suggests that the will is central to man’s existence: without it we would die. We literally see things from and with a particular perspective.

“Our eyes are located at a particular point in space, from which some things are visible and others are not”.

e.g. the top of the table, but not its underneath.

Although Nietzsche’s treatment of the will is far from simple, one thing is certain: by no means does the will to power mean the instinct for self-preservation. “Physiologists should think before putting down the instinct of self-preservation as the cardinal instinct of an organic being,” Nietzsche charges. “A living thing seeks above all to discharge its strength life itself is will to power; self-preservation is only one of the indirect and most frequent results” If we are doomed or blessed, depending on your perspective to always view the world from our own point of view, then one can never know an absolute truth.  Nietzsche states that in light of perspectivism the very idea of an absolute truth is unintelligible, so there can be no absolute truth to be known. 

• A scene looks different from different perspectives;

In ‘The Purpose’ it’s seems to have give the dream that Ekalavya dreaming but its pleasurable thing for the Ekalavya to get Guru Drona’s bless. Here we can say that Nietzsche fails to comprehend why anyone, much less those professing a love of truth, would “prefer even a handful of ‘certainty’ to a whole carload of beautiful possibilities” Science limits and stunts the growth of man, both intellectually and spirituall. A scene looks different from different perspectives from high up, we can see further and things look smaller, from below things ‘loom’ over us and we cannot see very far. e.g.

Nietzsche uses the word ‘interpretation’ to mean a belief about something as if it is like this or that. As it now stands, faith in reason and science does not and can never provide a firm basis on which to ground political life. An interpretation is an understanding of the world from a particular perspective; and so interpretations, like perspectives, relate back to our values. Nietzsche concludes that the will to power is the fundamental fact of nature, there are those who doubt the viability or the desirability of such a teaching. And Different perspectives are defined by different values; differences in belief are not themselves enough. Two people with different religious beliefs, for instance, may occupy the same perspective if their beliefs reflect the same underlying set of values. And So Nietzsche is saying that philosophical beliefs about truth and goodness are part of a particular perspective on the world, a short-sighted, distorting perspective.

“According to Nietzsche there is not any universal definition of truth. So he says: “There are no truths.” Well, how can one who believes that one’s conception of truth depends on the perspective from which one writes also posit anything resembling a universal truth? It’s prominently derived to the truth. And readers cannot accept Arjuna in a negative role because our mind has been conditioned to see Arjuna as the greatest archer of the world, as a noble man. This truth is shown by Ved Vyasa and we have accepted it.

In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche begins with a chapter entitled “On the Prejudices of Philosophers.”  Almost immediately he begins to tear into the lack of integrity on the part of traditional philosophers who present their ideas as the product of pure reason.  Nietzsche declaims, “they pose as having discovered and attained their real opinions through the self evolution of a cold, pure, divinely unperturbed dialectic: while what happens at bottom is that a prejudice, a notion, an ‘inspiration,’ generally a desire of the heart sifted and made abstract, is defended by them with reasons sought after the event”. Nietzsche perceives that a person cannot act while examining his actions with an uncertain eye.  A person must believe his or her actions to be the true and just ways to act even if this belief is a lie.  In The Will to Power, he writes this idea as “truth is the kind of error without which a certain being could not live” To see that this “certain kind of being” to which he is referring is definitely humanity, one need only look to Beyond Good and Evil, where he says that “for the purpose of preserving beings such as ourselves, such judgements synthetic a priori judgements must be believed to be true; although they might of course still be false judgements!”. Therefore, we humans need to act as if we are certain of what we are doing even though we cannot be certain. 

♀ summing up:

“one has to risk the hypothesis whether will does not affect will wherever ‘effects’ are recognized and whether all mechanical occurrences are not, insofar as a force is active in them, will force, effects of will”. The will as causation is an experiment marking a new philosopher. The readers are looking at one story from different perspectives and that are of the writers. And “Truth is not attainable. True reality is always hidden.”

kaushaldesai123@gmail.com