Ask The Possible: Tagore
Thanks to Johny for suggesting this post's poet: Rabindranath Tagore. Tagore was a very important figure in Bengali literature and culture. He won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1913. You can read more about him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabindranath_Tagore#Poetry
Though Tagore has written many longer poems, novels, and plays, the following is one of his shorter poems.
Though Tagore has written many longer poems, novels, and plays, the following is one of his shorter poems.
Ask The Possible
Asks the Possible of the Impossible,
"Where is your dwelling-place?"
"In the dreams of the Impotent,"
comes the answer
~
A dewdrop is a perfect integrity
that has no filial memory of its parentage.
~
A mind all logic is like a knife all blade.
It makes the hand bleed that uses it.
Asks the Possible of the Impossible,
"Where is your dwelling-place?"
"In the dreams of the Impotent,"
comes the answer
~
A dewdrop is a perfect integrity
that has no filial memory of its parentage.
~
A mind all logic is like a knife all blade.
It makes the hand bleed that uses it.
posted by B. Ryan | 1/20/2006 10:00:00 AM
8 Comments:
I adore Tagore! (sorry but I just had to say it once) Nonetheless, in some of his shorter works (like this one), you really have to wonder whether he drew inspiration from a rogue fortune cookie. Does anyone know whether they had fortune cookies in the turn of the last century?
In any case, I especially admire Tagore's Gitanjali, Sadhana, and The Crescent Moon... he gave the world such a rich body of philosophical rumination...
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/tagore/
My understanding of Tagore is, he was a universalist, he truly dedicated his life to become one of the most exceptional vehicles of Indian culture, perhaps in all of Indian history. India’s struggle with colonial oppression has been expressed very eloquently in this as well as in vast areas of his writings.
I think it's a mistake to call this poem a "rogue fortune cookie" just because it is shorter than others.
The nature of this forum isn't conducive to me posting pages and pages of longer poems, and I spent time reading through a bunch of Tagore's shorter works before settling on this one. Think of this forum as a jumping off point. By introducing Tagore and posting this shorter poem, I hope that people will explore his other works.
By choosing this poem I am in no way belittling Tagore's talent and gift for "philosophical rumination." On the contrary, I think this poem contributes a great deal towards that end. It may be small, but it packs a lot, deceptively.
One thing I'd like to open up for discussion, for example, is: What are the links between the three stanzas, whose content seems disparate? Also, what are some larger "philosophical ruminations" that Tagore might have distilled into this short work?
The thing that seems to join the 3 to me is that each represents an extreme rather than balance.
In the first stanza, the impotent only dream of the impossible, not both the impossible and possible. Obviously the impotent suffer from this, therefore one needs to dream of both the possible and impossible.
In the second the dewdrop has perfect integrity but lacks parentage, perhaps meaning its lacking something to test its integrity. Can you really have integrity if you never have to make a moral judgement?? Just because you never do something wrong, does that give you integrity?
The third stanza discusses a mind that is all rational; rather than rational and emotive, again the idea that you need a balance between both. I know that this idea in particular has been long debated in philosophy, if there should be a balance between rational and emotional or if solely rational is better or if solely emotional is better.
I don't really know a lot about poetry so I'm not sure if I'm completely wrong...just my initial thoughts. I'm curious what others say.
Fortune cookies are like small mongoloids (eg.: myself). We are small, but for our size – we can pack a lot and thereby deceive! However, we are not deceptively dense! Just plainly so - in a lovable way. Alas the subtle distinctions… here is to the fortune cookie:
Oh fortune cookie, be thee not mistaken for deception but be thee balanced! For the balanced fortune cookie is not a rogue fortune cookie. Dream thee of what is tantalizingly possible and all that is not! Be thee universal with sense and sensibility! But please, oh please… heed thee Darlene’s comment about parentage, integrity, and moral judgment. For a fortune cookie must know its origins in order to persevere with integrity. Thus, gentle fortune cookie, I guide you to http://www.chcp.org/fortune.html, wherein you shall learn of your message stuffed forefather in pastry, the sembet…
After serious reflection, I must add that Bridget’s defense of Tagore’s work has some basis… perhaps the short poem cannot be called a rogue fortune cookie. Through its subtle beckoning for balance, ‘Ask the Impossible’ is a fortune cookie in peace with its inner chi.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Awareness of the trait is not a prerequisite for the existence of the trait about which one is aware, irrespective of whether we're speaking of Tagore, or this wondefully fortune cookie-like poem! Besides, I believe Tagore most certainly intended the aphorismic style in this work - who knows? - he might even have known about the usefulness of a sembet. Even if he did not, I still would like to think of this poem as a fortune cookie.
On a different note...
The character of the 'Impossible' seems to express the following notion through its reply to the 'Possible' about its home: one who cannot accomplish anything dreams of what cannot be accomplished. Such a sentiment implicitly associates the individual's
personal outlook as the primary driving force of the individual's ability to achieve. This view seems to me to be incomplete as it does not take into acount the environmental factors that can inhibit a person's ability to reach the realm (or dwelling-place) of all that is Possible. But perhaps that is what Tagore provokes us to consider - that environmental factors need not inhibit us from striving for that which seems impossible. As shown in the second stanza, the dewdrop expresses a similar sense of detachment from external factors (and thereby attachment to what is inside). The dewdrop has no memory of what preceeded it or what allowed it to come into being and in so being, is not encumbered by any additional baggage, or blemish that could inhibit its 'perfect integrity'. Perhaps Tagore considers the dew drop's detachment from a past it has no control over - a source of empowerment. The last stanza also evokes detachment imagery through its use of the knife - which fundamentally cuts off one piece from a larger whole. Yet in the third stanza, the sense of detachment is painful and is warned against. I (and I am sure, any clear-sighted fortune cookie) would agree with Darlene's suggestion that Tagore argues for balance. Contrary to my previous post in which I tell a fortune cookie to be mindful of its origins, Tagore might in fact prefer that the fortune cookie become more mindful of its ownself as a separate individual born not with any original-sin like deficiency but with perfect integrity.
I must say I enjoyed the "I adore Tagore" catchphrase there Johny... I spent a long time trying to come up with a similar compliment to the man that rhymed with "Rabindranath" but alas, I have failed. The closest I came was "I fear not the wrath of a peaceful man like Rabindranath" but I thought that was pretty weak actually.
I liked Bridget's questions on what links the 3 stanzas and what philosophical ruminations (I learned a new word when I looked that one up lol) are present. My take on the common philisophical theme of the stanzas:
===================================================================
Severance from your earthy human side is attempted to pursue "higher, purer" goals... but complete severance is ultimately crippling and destructive.
===================================================================
I think all 3 stanzas support this, with each supporting it more clearly. Stanza 3 supports this the most overtly: to make your mind all logic, a supposedly "higher, purer" goal and completely sever it from your human physicality is to ignore, neglect, and punish your true nature. Tagore's analogy of the hand bleeding is appropriate; while the mind carries out logical pursuits, the hand is what connects us humans to our earthy world and natures. (thanks Heidegger lol) Thus making the mind all logic will ultimately result in destruction of our humanity.
Stanza 2 supports this same thought: a dewdrop is as "pure" as you will find naturally occuring water. It is mostly pure H2O that has condensed out of the air. Solid muddy impurities that water flowing in a river or sitting in a lake would have are not present in a condensed dewdrop. However, the dewdrop also has no connection to where it came from. Although a drop of water in a river is part of a large interconnected flow of water droplets that is coming from somewhere and going somewhere else, a dewdrop came out of thin air... and is not really part of anything beyond itself nor is it clearly going anywhere. Though it is the purest form of water, it has no connection to the earthy activities of water. Thus it is the same theme as Stanza 3! Humans attempting to completely "purify" themselves must shed their nature as historical beings living as part of an earthly society.
Stanza 1 least obviously supports that theme, but still does to me. I believe this stanza shows the result of what is explained in the other two stanzas. Here... it shows the perfectly pure as being impotent. The act creating "dreams"... of thinking and dreaming and planning all logically... are the ultimate in the pursuit of a person becoming "higher, purer". However, he states here that the perfect purity of these dreams has in fact left the person impotent and ineffectual. The Possible... that is all the multiple possibilities for human existence... come through humanity's earthy nature as well as through the logical mind. (again thanks Heidsters) To neglect the first for the second is to shut out these possibilities and leave humanity stuck in the Impossible.
What I wrote very well may be completely incorrect. lol I am very interested in this posting but also very much a novice at poetic analysis and would thus love to hear any advice/criticisms of my take on it. Be brutal people! lol
Post a Comment
<< Home