LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT. 50.PROGRESS AND FRUSTRATION

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

50. PROGRESS AND FRUSTRATION

The world operates on the idea or assumption that we are constantly improving or progressing. The image of science and technology, the commercial and industrial complexes, the economic and educational establishments,the media etc give us this constant message that we are advancing. But those who are able and willing to see beyond the surface note the problems and pains, the suffering and squalor, and the unsolvable new problems created in the very name of progress and development: much of science and technology is devoted to war and violence; despite claims of economic progress, over one third of mankind suffers from hunger, want and poverty; nature, which is the basis of sustenance is itself threatened.

Modern society glosses over realities. Economic pundits gather in fashionable star hotels to discuss ways to deal with poverty. Air, water, soil, the rivers and seas-everything is polluted;yet half the scientists question the facts, while the other half does not know what to do or how to go about it. The media spreads the merry images of happy people- all youngsters, enjoying everything. The sight of old age, sickness and death turned a prince Siddhartha on the road to Buddhahood; modern barons of society would not let knowledge of reality to percolate down. A modern version of William Blake's The Chimney Sweeper states:

And because I am happy,& dance & sing,

They think they have done me no injury,

And are gone to praise  God & his Priest and King,

Who make up a heaven of our misery.

(Taken from The Norton Anthology, World Masterpieces, Vol.II, 7th edition, p.541)

As Shailendra, our master celluloid poet wrote 60 years ago:

Rasta wohi, aur musafir wohi,

Ek taara na jaane kahan chup gaya

Duniya wohi, duniyawale wohi

Koyi kya jaane kiska jahan lut gaya

The world goes by appearances. Unless catastrophe strikes wholesale or on a mass scale, society will not recognise or react. But by then it may be too late, the 29th day! Only, now we don't go to praise God or his priest or king, but the new demigods- the scientists, the technocrats, the economists.

All the ancient traditions of the world held the contrary view that humankind started in a pristine state, and had progressively declined. The original golden age has turned into iron age- the dark age. Religion was the answer to the deterioration. They all stressed the inner state of man.

Even taking a historical religion, we see that the Judeo-Christian tradition started with the idea of a 'fall'- the expulsion and fall from Paradise. If we don't lose our head in the literal nonsense, and see the symbolic nature, we at once see the beauty and majesty of the idea and its truth: humanity has been or got alienated from the original consciousness of Unity of Existence- call it paradise, God, what you will. Regaining that original consciousness is the real spiritual or religious endeavour. To the extent we are all born in a society which operates with such an alienated understanding, we all partake of the 'original sin'.

We in India are only aware of the missionary version of Christianity- full of mischief, malice and propaganda. And we loathe their vulgar conversion efforts. But these things should not blind us to the inner core of truth and beauty. It does not mean the solution  given by their priests is correct. In the theological version, Satan tempts Eve and Adam, induces them to eat the forbidden fruit and thus disobey God. God knew it and yet kept quiet! Satan was his own creation, no less than Adam and Eve, yet God did not correct them, allowed them to fall, and then punished them for the disobedience! What kind of God is he? Which parent would allow a child to commit a mistake and then punish it for the same?

These problems arise because a symbol or allegory is taken as the literal truth.

We Hindus start with the idea of karma. But how did karma start at all? We say, it is 'anaadhi'- without beginning. So, we take it as given. We don't know the why of it.

Our Sages do not enter into the questions of origin at all. It is the preoccupation of philosophers, ending in no insight but endless speculation and dispute. And knowing the origin solves no problems. So, sages take the situation as it is and give a way out. They say no matter where we are, we may get out. As the old stories used to say, when some one is hit by a poisonous arrow, should we enquire into the origin  and nature of the arrow or  seek a remedy?

The three modern Masters we have been considering all gave us such a practical approach. Sri Ramakrishna came particularly at a time when English education was blinding our youth to the truth of our religion, missionaries were leading them away, and reform movements were leading them astray. He sat in Calcutta, the seat of imperial power and centre of modern education, spurning bread-winning education and taught mainly educated people how to practice religion and spirituality. He pointed out the truth of our traditional religious practises and showed us what was relevant and effective for the modern age.The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna is a complete  manual of practical religion for all Hindu aspirants.

It is now fashionable in certain quarters to talk of Sri Ramakrishna as the advocate of harmony or equality of all religions. It is true that he undertook certain exercises in Sufi form of Islam and Christianity. But at no time he took proper initiation in them, or practised them beyond three days! And Sufism is not accepted by many Muslims as real Islam at all! Unless one gets 'baptised', one is not treated as a Christian at all! Any one can read the Bible and claim to follow Christianity! In the circumstances of religious strife which prevailed then, Sri Ramakrishna did point out that all of them reached the same goal. It is not the same thing as saying that all religions are equal! Hindus have never sought to convert others, have always been the targets and victims of conversion. If Ramakrishna's message on harmony has any relevance at all, it is for the Muslims and Christians but they do not accept him as their authority! So long as Muslims and Christians do not give up their conversion aim, any talk of inter-religious harmony is pure bunkum, and sheer hypocrisy, plain idiocy.. Those RK Math monks who indulge in such talk are fooling themselves and fooling us, and doing grave injustice to Sri Ramakrishna and damaging the interests of Hindus. No less an authority than Holy Mother herself said, on one occasion when a disciple mentioned the subject of inter-religious harmony vis a vis Sri Ramakrishna, the following:

My son, your idea about the harmony of religions is all right.But I do not think that he followed various religions in order to teach this idea.Day and night he was immersed in the thought of God , and was absorbed in ecstasy.He delighted in experiencing  that same One God through the various paths/sects of Hinduism and through Christianity and Islam. As for me, Thakur's great/chief characteristic was his renunciation. Can we witness such natural renunciation in any one else? Renunciation  alone was his ornament.

(Recorded in the detailed biography of Holy Mother in Tamil by Swami Asutoshananda, 2008, page 127. The above is my translation. See this also in the biography by Swami Gambhirananda, p.463)

Sri Ramakrishna respected all religions and all holy people. It does not mean he gave up his own religion, or valued others above it. Apart from the period of his sadhana (about 3 days each) he did not follow any of the Christian or Islamic practices. His attitude to Hindus converted to Christianity is well illustrated in his reaction to Michael Madhusudan Dutta, a well-known lawyer and literary figure. When he met Sri Ramakrishna, he disclosed that poverty made him convert to Christianity- something that did not please  the people around. Later, Dutta sought some spiritual instructions from the Master but he said 'he felt as if some one was pressing his mouth shut and not allowing him to speak.' After some time his mood changed and he sang some devotional songs,but gave no instructions.

(See:Sri Ramakrishna and His Divine Play: Swami Chetanananda, Vedanta Society of St.Louis,2003, p593-4)

On 4 January,1884, M  was sitting with the Master and mentioned that Keshab Chandra Sen's health had deteriorated. They then fell to talking about his Brahmo Samaj. Sri Ramakrishna said that though Keshab had at one time thought high of Christianity and accepted their views,  he had now accepted Mother Kali , repeated her name and chanted Her glories. He then asked M what he thought- whether the Brahmo Samaj would develop into a sort of social-reform organisation. M replied :

The soil of this country is different.Only what is true survives here.

Sri Ramakrishna said:

Yes, that is so. The Sanatana Dharma, the Eternal Religion, declared by the rishis will alone endure. But there will also remain some sects like the Brahmo Samaj. Everything appears and disappears through the will of God.


(The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna,1996, p378)

This entry is important. It shows Sri Ramakrishna's attitude towards Hinduism- the religion declared by the rishis.After Keshab came in contact with our Master, his views gradually changed, he accepted the idea of God as Mother which led to dissensions within his ranks. At the same time, there have been numerous sects, most of them with reform agenda. Mahatma Gandhi stole the thunder from the Brahmo Samaj- combining social reform with constructive social service and  economic revival, but after him, it has all degenerated into political activity. But the most disturbing fact is the so called secular govt. itself has become the agent of reform, which mostly takes an anti-Hindu turn.

Sri Ramakrisna's sole concern was God Realisation and one could not get a single idea from him for any reform- on questions like child marriage, widow remarriage, women's education, caste, etc. Gandhi took on too many things and made a mess of everything-including Independence, which resulted in Partition. In no field did he succeed.

It was the same attitude with the other Masters too.Sai Baba lived before the freedom movement mecame mass-based, but Sri Ramana's period fully coincided with it.  Many of his devotees and visitors had also been followers of Gandhi. But Bhagavan was totally aloof, detached. People were free to follow what they would, but they could not make the Asramam a ground for their experiments. The Asramam was a place for spiritual discipline; those who were qualified and earnest found a silent guide in Bhagavan, with no words exchanged. Those who were not ripe but eager, could learn or gain something from the very atmosphere. The uninitiated could just come and go. Each thus gained according to his attitude, interest and intensity. 

Sri Ramana was the least conventional and orthodox in his teaching- which is generally not appreciated enough. He was in fact revolutionary.

 Sri Ramakrishna expounded the Bhagavata religion- simple and direct devotion to God-his authorities being Narada, Bhagavata, Gita, Adhyatma Ramayana. Above all was Mother Kali. He positively discouraged Vedantic sadhana and encouraged people to worship Mother- while upholding the truth of all paths. This was tailored for householders in this Kali Age, who were the overwhelming majority of his devotees and followers.Some form of spiritual discipline, and a definite attitude to God was essential. He extolled renunciation, but not in the external form of Sanyasa for all. Catch hold of the feet of God with one hand, and work in the world with the other, was his advice to householders.

Sai Baba appeared unconventional for a Hindu in his dress and some expressions. But his instructions were exactly conventional- have a guru, respect him as God, do not neglect family traditions  and           conventions in the matter of worship, fulfil your vows faithfully, do regular spiritual sadhana,- these were his main instructions. He asked people to read specific devotional works of Marathi saints, as almost all his visitors were Marathi-speaking.

A remarkable aspect of Baba's ministry was that he could tell devotees what they missed- some might have vowed something to their family deity but forgotten, some might not even know their family deity or guru etc. Baba would direct them. Many people came seeking him, but he would direct them to their own gurus. Many visitors also beheld their tutelary or ishata devta in Baba! It was such small but intimate acts which bound people to him- not flashing miracles.

One unconventional aspect of Baba was demanding dakshina- but as Arthur Osborne pointed out, this seems to have been symbolic. eg: two rupees might mean two essential qualities- sraddha and saburi-faith and patience; 5 rupees could mean surrender of the indriyas to the guru, etc. But he did not ask dakshina from all, nor would he accept from all. He said he asked  only those from whom it was due- who could say, it was from which birth? He said he collected dakshina only from those who belonged to him. He would insist only on particular sums, very small, and refuse large offers. It would happen that he demanded the exact amount some one had vowed but forgotten! The whole thing is mysterious. And all the collections would be distributed to needy people. Towards the end, huge amounts came to him- it attracted the notice of Income Tax  people- even in those days! But nothing would remain with him. After he died,  only 16 rupees were found there!

Bhagavan Ramana was unconventional, though people did not realise. He was the least free- constantly surrounded by followers. But most of them did not follow his method- yet they wanted to benefit by being in his company! We have no clear idea of what an Asramam is! Gandhi had two Ashrams- in Sabarmati and Wardha- where the inmates were trained in some discipline, had to follow regular routine. Sri Aurobindo's Ashram was a place for Sadhana- but individual. The inmates pursued their own methods, with guidance from Mother. The inmates could submit their questions or doubts which Sri Aurobindo would answer patiently, but they could see him only on 4 or 5 occasions in the year! That was not an Ashram which depended on charity- so every one had to do the work assigned by the Mother! It was not a place for idle assembly or mere contemplation! Even today, most people have no idea of the concept. Sri Aurobindo's Yoga was not the world shunning type.

Sri Ramanasramam was also different. ( I am writing of those days.) Most devotees lived in other towns, had jobs and could visit only on holidays. The place was away from the town, like a jungle and so for their own convenience they built some sheds . Bhagavan had laid down that donations should not be solicited.Visitors were expected to meet their expenses. With the steady increase in the number of visitors some organisation and facilities became necessary and with it came controls, regulations, etc.It was not all smooth all the time. 

The surprising thing was that though every one came for the sake of Bhagavan, Bhagavan was himself least concerned with these doings, unless some matter was referred to him. Often he had to remind visitors: "Mind the work for which you came here." Bhagavan thus kept himself distinct from the Asramam management.

Which was all to the good, because some people were not welcome in the Asramam, some did not like it.Even when the management prohibited some one from visiting Bhagavan, Bhagavan would go out to meet them! Ladies could not stay there, nor could any one stay for long ,except with special permission. But some staunch devotees made arrangements to stay nearby, so that they could visit Bhagavan daily. Lady devotees had written about the hardships they faced in doing so.

The highlight/ main activity was just to sit in the Hall with Bhagavan, mostly in silence. As there was no formal teaching, it was entirely up to the individual to derive  benefit.

Thus the word Asramam does not mean the same in all cases. I have been visiting Sri Ramanasramam from 1970 and have seen the changes over the years. In the prevailing political and social conditions in Tamil Nad, it is difficult for spiritual institutions to function, especially when they do not cater to popular demand or meet popular ideas, especially when they are considered elite.In short, when they do not pander to local chauvinism.

This can be seen clearly in case of Sri Aurobindo Ashram. From the early days, it was an elite institution. Sri Aurobindo had said that his yoga was not for every one, and that only those who felt the call would take it up. They never made any publicity, nor called people to come. Though Sri Aurobindo lived and worked there in Pondicherry for 40 years, the local population or those in neighbouring Tamil Nad did not read his works, because they were all in high English. But when some Tamil writers started writing about 'miracles' or such things connected with the Mother, the cult of the Mother spread and gripped the people. The most prominent among them was Karmayogi. His essential message was  that the Yoga was tough, but Mother could be approached for worldly favours, even if they did not intend to follow Yoga, provided they observed some methods!

But the Ashram has also been the target of pro-Tamil and other chauvinist groups whenever a political issue crops up, be it anti-Hindi agitation, anti-Srilanka agitation, etc. I have found that both in Tiruvannamalai and in Pondicherry, the local people are against the Ashrams! They seem to be unaware that these are international centres and are not meant to cater to local whims! They cannot assume local colour!

I found such prejudice even in some educated quarters. Once I was talking to a writer and social worker. He complained that after all, Sri Aurobindo Ashram had not done anything for the local people! I asked him to explain. After some fumbling, he said there were so many poor people,the living and sanitary conditions were bad in Pondicherry and the Ashram had done nothing to improve matters! I asked him what his idea of the Ashram was- a charitable organisation, social service organisation, reform movement, or what? Had he read their statement about the aims and activities of the Ashram? Had he read Sri Aurobindo's writings on the subject? Should every "Ashram'" do the same things, and jump into social/ religious/ charity activity? Can he accuse the Indian Institute of Science of not doing slum improvement work? or undertaking flood or cyclone relief? He could as well accuse them of not reducing unemployment in the city!

On the contrary the Ashram had been there for all to see: a self-contained community; with simple but elegant and neat buildings, with no litter around; an aesthetic touch everywhere; their show-rooms are so well laid and organised; their products- be it agarbattis, hand-made paper, ayurvedic medicines the best of their kind; one of the best printing presses in India with reputation for quality printing and binding; all the inmates assigned some productive work; their inmates moving about simply on bicycles ; a quiet touch of efficiency everywhere; a neatly maintained and decorated Samadhi, with complete silence, in spite of so many daily visitors! I said they had all been there all the time and why the locals could not emulate any of them? How dirty was the Manakkula Vinayakar temple just across the street! The Ashram was responsible for that too?

The point is: the govt is inactive; civic authorities are sleeping; there are so many dissensions and groups among them; not many of them are really educated. They only have the mob mentality and mass psychology: they feel that if they gather in numbers, they can force themselves in - the law enforcers are in their hands! And the public has no civic sense or consciousness! They have no sense of order, no eye for beauty. But they feel satisfied if some one else is criticised!

The real question is : Pondicherry is a State capital. It has the state bureaucracy, a central university, a highly publicised medical establishment. What have they contributed to Pondicherry?

It was said about the French Revolution that one of its causes was that 'the nobility did not pay; the clergy did not pray; the common man was asked both to pay and pray'. Now, in India, the govt. does not govern; the govt. hospitals do not heal; the govt. schools cannot teach. But the common man is taxed at all levels- the corporation, state and centre. Most of this tax revenue goes to feed the bureaucracy, which does not know what hard work or productivity or creativity is.

One important lesson Mahatma Gandhi taught us was self-help and self reliance. During the freedom movement , he led agitations. But he also undertook many 'constructive'  activities in the social and economic spheres, without having any  official power. Where has that spirit gone since Independence? We can neither make the govt. work, nor work ourselves! But we find fault with those who mind their own work!

.

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT. 26.DECIDING WHAT TO READ

LITERATURE- LIGHT AND DELIGHT

26.  DECIDING WHAT TO READ

Most of us have a weakness for something or the other. The celluloid poet Shailendra once wrote:

Kisi ko har har note ka nasha hai
Kisi ko suit boot coat ka nasha hai

(Some are intoxicated by the sight of fresh currency notes; some by good dress).Our books tell us that major weaknesses are mainly the three Ws.(They also speak of three attachments-Ishanatrayam) Modern civilisation has given us a few more : stamp collection, photography, keeping pets, simply collecting exotic things, hunting autographs, collecting pens, watches,etc. You name it 'hobby', and anything acquires respectability, and a following!

With some of us, reading literature is a madness, not just weakness.It is difficult to say how one acquires this. May be the influence of a teacher, or example of a family member was at work.In my own case, my mother was a voracious reader and I think she bequeathed this wealth to me, fully!

Yes, you may read all you like, but why buy books- which can put a hole in your roof, not just pocket? We do not have good libraries. The needed books may not be available. In college, my lecturer recommended a book on the pricing of public utilities: by Martin Glaser and said where it was available: Connemara Library, Madras. When we went to Madras, I visited the library and saw the book.But the particular chapter was missing: it had been nicely prised away with blade! In the big cities, for the cost of transportation , you may almost buy a book! And in the time spent, you may finish reading it,too!

If you are a serious reader, you would like to mark things as you go along- may be a  word here, a sentence there, an expression; or you may disagree with something and mark it. Often such markings help you to recapitulate the subject at a glance even years later. I have found mark-worthy matters even in the novels of Harold Robbins! So the markings make the book personal! It is not possible to mark library books, and not desirable in the case of borrowed books. ( I remember, Rajaji once borrowed a book from TTK,but could not resist marking or making some noting, and apologized to TTK!)It used to be said of newspapers that they are like woman: every one must have his own, and not look to his neighbour's! It is even more so in the case of books. And 'neither a borrower, nor a lender be' is especially applicable to books: you may get your money back, and not lose a friend, but a lost or spoiled book is difficult to replace. So there is no way other than buying a book, and holding on to it!

How do we decide  which book to read - fiction or non-fiction? We read non-fiction out of necessity, and since most of us in jobs or retirement do not have any such compelling reason, most of us do not read serious non-fiction at all. We do not read up even on subjects which we majored in at the university. For most of us serious study ends with college. Only professionals like lawyers, doctors, university professors (?),accountants  have to keep reading to remain in practice.

But many of us read fiction. However, in Tamilian middle class circles, it has taken the form of reading the periodicals carrying serials and short stories. This is a fairly well established tradition.There are avid readers, and I remember that in my school days the elders would eagerly await the arrival of the vendor bringing the latest issue of the magazine Kalki on Thursday mornings, when Kalki's novel Ponniyin Selvan was serialised in it- it ran for four years! Once it arrived, they would vie with each other to read it first; if any elder was not well and unable to read, some of us boys would have to read it aloud! That was the craze!  (But we boys would beat them: we would quietly slip out, meet the vendor at the street corner and snatch the magazine from him, stand quietly in a corner and read it, before bringing it home!)It would then be shared with two or three other families. 'Kalaimagal' magazine also carried good stories. But such craze was not for it. But 'Ananda Vikatan'  was  eagerly awaited every week, when Devan's novels  like 'Thuppariyum Saambu' or CID Chanduru were serialised! Such novels were not published as books then. So, many families collected the weekly articles and got them bound. We ourselves had at one time more than 300 such bound volumes collected over 30 years! Unfortunately, they were all printed on cheap newsprint and deteriorated fast. I mention this because it would help us understand that most of us do not have the habit of buying books-even fiction! At the most, we may have a Ramayana or some other religious books. In my visits to the  houses of friends and relatives over the last 55 years  in 7 cities across India,that I remember, I have seen not more than about ten houses with some books- (other than school books) and only two with a library, of mostly non-fiction.

So how do we decide to buy books at all?  We decide about seeing films after some one tells us about it- some one whose judgement we rely upon. But now most newspapers carry film reviews, so we can form an opinion. Most of us watch it on the TV any way,so it really does not matter. We attend music performances on the basis of the artist we like. It is only later that we read a review in a magazine  or newspaper. As for books, some newspapers carry reviews. The Hindu used to carry reviews and also lists of books received for review, earlier on Sundays, but later on other days. But this has dwindled now. They bring out a literary supplement, but it is all slanted, and holds appeal only to some niches. There is no book-review at all in the Times of India! All this only shows how much our media cares for fostering love of books or serious reading habits!

It is indeed a miracle that we decide to buy a book at all! Even those given to buying books found it difficult to get to know about new books, and then getting an idea about them, in the absence of review. In the cities we would visit book shops, scan the shelves, pick up the books that appealed, and browse through the contents, introduction, preface, etc. Some shop keepers would not allow that, and in any case most did not have sufficient space or lighting. Those of us reading magazines would get to know about some books- for eg. Rajaji, even at the age of 80+, would read books and write about them in Swarajya! I remember he reviewed Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita, and also mentioned Parkinson's Law. It is only through academic journals that we got to learn about new books.

The Reader's Digest was an excellent resource. Every issue would contain a book supplement. Articles would carry references to other books and sources. I used to buy it for  over 30 years-from 1960. I collected the book supplements , and other desired articles and got them bound. I preserved even the covers- the front cover would contain a nice painting, and the inside third cover would contain a very interesting piece about some celebrity's experience: in one, Toscanini, the famous Italian conductor related how once when he was playing the piano a flock of canaries came and sang in unison! At one stage, I had more than 150 bound volumes, but no place to keep! Also, in the 90s the Indian edition had made  changes which I did not like- I thought it had lost its "Universal" flavour;  margins on the left had become smaller which did not permit binding. Besides, our priorities do also change with the years. So, I stopped buying it in the 90s. Incidentally, there is a nice book on the changing priorities of life, titled "Repacking Your Bags" by Richard Leider! The Reader's Digest Condensed Books were another great resource! My God, how many books and authors and subjects we came to know through it! But back then in the late 50s, they were not easy to get!

The decision to read or buy a particular book on a subject is greatly facilitated by book review,or influenced by peer views or teacher's guidance. If you want to read say Shakespear's Macbeth or As You Like It ,which edition to get? Clarendon or Verity? Or any other? We needed advice. Those days we had classic novels like those of Dickens or Hardy as non-detailed reading; but once you got a taste, you could go ahead and get the others if available! The college libraries had many of them, but our Principal had given instructions that Hardy's 'Jude the Obscure' should not be issued to any student! There was always a senior who was a voracious reader and he would tell us about some books- though at times some were not so desirable, like those of Alberto Moravia. If we had to write an essay say on Macbeth's character, where would you get the material? The lecturer would direct you to the library. You would finally discover A.C.Bradley, and that would be a gold mine! It is like this in small steps that we got to know about books.

But how to know whether the book is good, to read or to buy? It depends on reviews in standard journals or newspapers by recognised names or authorities.  (D.Anjaneyulu, Prema Nandakumar, Prof.M.Siva
ramakrishna , for example) And the journal would depend on the subject. If you are interested in say religion or philosophy and such matters, Prabuddha Bharata or Mountain Path may help; but that depends on publishers giving them copies for review- and most publishers don't. Some times some articles in newspapers mention some books. I remember Swami Ranganathananda mentioned 'The Tao Of Physics' by Fritjof Capra in an article he wrote in the Indian Express in 1977 or 78. So we got to know about it.Once we got the book (it was a Bantam New Age Book), we got to know more books on allied subjects in the same series! Likewise, any one interested in Ramana Maharshi would have heard of Paul Brunton's book 'A Search in Secret India'. In the 60s, it was published by Arrow Books,London in their 'Mind and Matter' series. Once you got it, you would get to know other books in the series!  Scholarly books contain suggestions for further reading and notes contain references to many books.This is how we got to know about books. A good library is the place to get to know about books and read them.

In Madras, second hand books were available in the Moore Market, but we only searched for college books. In Bombay, there were mountains of books on the platform and in some shops specialising in second hand books. There , you had to take from what was available; for specific books  you had to go to a regular book shop.

We faced problems with poetry books too. Most of us read some good English poems in text books.Where to look for more? Palgrave's Golden Treasury was the only available anthology then, but it was without annotations, and we could not follow them.There were some like the one by Moles and Moon, but it contained only some long poems. Then came the Mentor Book of Major British Poets, but that too without notes. This problem persists.

Happily, the internet and the coming of online shopping has drastically changed things. All information you need is literally at your finger tips. On most books , you could get material on the net.After getting introduced to the net, I spent a full year on updating my old academic subjects. The amount of material available was mind boggling, and it would surely take a long time to read and digest that. Thank God, there was no internet 50 years ago- otherwise I would not have been able to write the exam!

But still, internet does not solve the problem of which book or edition to buy. I will give a concrete example. Suppose you are interested in acquiring standard material on English literature. You would come to know that there are good anthologies. But they are one too many! Almost every  famous university or publisher has his! And they are all expensive even for a book lover-upwards of Rs.5000! (per volume and they are multi-volume series!) So which one to choose?

It is here that online shopping helps you. A site like Junglee tells you which vendor is cheapest. But the cheapest may not have a review on his site. I have found that on most books Amazon has reviews by actual buyers. On academic books, well-read people and often the teachers and professors who teach the subject  themselves provide review- at times very detailed! In the end you realise that in some cases no edition is satisfactory. eg if you want to acquire an edition of the complete works of Shakespeare, you will find several editions. You will find that each edition is subjected to detailed review; every edition has compromised somewhere and no edition is fully satisfactory. If you read Harold Bloom, you will learn that the Oxford Shakespeare texts are the least satisfactory (See his magnificent book: Shakespeare-The Invention of the Human). So it is best to go in for individual volumes, with detailed annotations. Here too there are many editions. We choose depending upon the immediate interest. If we want to simply understand the work and then enjoy the poetry, 'No Fear Shakespeare' will do. It is a straight plan: it has the original on the one side, and a version in plain current English on the other, line by line! So we know what Shakespeare means, though we may not know the exact meaning of every word. If we are interested in deeper study of the plot, character, context of the play, background etc, we will have to go for annotated editions. But these days, many editions deal with the stage angle. They think that the plays were meant for acting and it is from that angle that it should be analysed. But we are more interested in it as literature - as poetry! So we have to focus on an edition that deals with the plays as literature, not a draft for theatre! Western audiences may be interested in watching the play; we have no such facility here, or even interest. We are satisfied with Shakespeare as the greatest poet. 

The net contains  the texts, analysis and explanation of most well-known poems and the quotations of Shakespeare. For most people used to the net, reading on line may be sufficient. But old timers like me feel that there is no substitute for actually taking the book in your hand, smelling it, feeling the paper and seeing print! Again, as Sahir Ludhianvi, the celebrated celluloid poet sang:

Jo baat tujh mein hain
Teri tasveer mein nahin!

(He sings of the beloved: that which is in you, is not there in your portrait!)
{ Incidentally, this is a wonderful love song and would neatly fit our love of books! If we don't love them, why should we buy them and hold them in our hand? And having loved, how can we part with them?} I wonder how any serious lover of good literature can settle for online reading!

 For us the reviews are invaluable, to help decide which book to read and which edition to buy. Review is evaluation- another name for critique or criticism. Literary criticism is a vital aspect of the overall literary activity.This we will see next.


Note:

Having mentioned English Literature anthologies, and Shakespeare, I would share the following.

1.There are many anthologies of English Literature.They are very expensive, but indispensable for proper understanding. Indian university courses are half-way houses and do not cover any subject adequately. I have found Norton Anthology to be very good and useful. There is an Oxford Anthology (now in two combined volumes) edited by Harold Bloom and others. This is even more expensive, but is very valuable, because it is not influenced by modern critical prejudices. Though they are expensive, they will obviate the need to buy many individual books later on and thus save us lot of money and time. They would surely provide a lifetime of reading pleasure.

2.As for Shakespeare, if we must own a volume of complete works, either as a matter of pride, or a mark of respect to the Bard, or just for the heck of it, the Royal Shakespeare Company sponsored edition seems to be the best option; a paperback edition is available for under Rs.2000. But this is just for show; for study we would need individual volumes. I have found 'No Fear Shakespeare' series to be helpful. Harold Bloom relies on the Arden editions. I have found the Evans Shakespeare series to be very helpful. It has a section containing material on the sources and contexts, from contemporaries and old authorities. And it has a section containing classic criticism, from Coleridge, William Hazlitt, Bradley, T.S.Eliot etc! And from modern scholars! The UK edition is expensive, but now Indian edition is available for some titles- almost for a song! (They do not have the colour plates.)

3. As for poetry, things are somewhat better. Complete works  of the major poets in durable editions are so expensive as to be not only beyond our reach, but even beyond our imagination. (Complete works of some poets are available in cheap paperback from Wordsworth Editions; they are without notes. A poet like Browning cannot at all be read without annotations.) Selected works are available in paperbacks in Oxford and Penguin editions.The print is small, the paper is not good, and the binding will not stand repeated handling.But they do carry valuable introduction and notes  by scholars. We do get bargains from online stores. Personally I have found Norton Critical Editions of individual poets to be very useful and absolutely delightful to read. The amount of material presented is simply enormous.In some cases Indian editions are available. (There are books by Dr.S.Sen ( Unique Publishers,Delhi) meant for Indian Universities.These contain very detailed annotations and are useful, if you do not mind the occasional howlers.)

4. Often we are tempted to buy books because they become best sellers, or they get some award,or are much talked about. But what happens to the best sellers  a year or two hence? Like Alvin Toffler's 'instant celebrities' they are here this moment, but are forgotten when the next candidate arrives! This best seller business seems to me  to be pure publicity gimmick. After all, we know how awards are got or given! We have to stick to enduring literature.

5. How can we afford to buy books?  Well, life is based on choice, and sacrifice! We can't have all.I can only relate my experience.(in the hope it may help some one) I stopped seeing films in theatre 40 years ago; I did not go to expensive restaurants; usually I avoided coffee, along with snacks; I visited only sacred places and avoided 'tourist spotss'; I travel by public transport, and avoid autos, to the extent possible; I have deliberately avoided owning a car. These are the ways I saved money to buy books!

6. How do we find space to keep our books? Living in flats, this is real problem.It is really strange- the idiot box gets pride of place in the living space, while books are kept elsewhere! I keep books in box cots; some are kept in the attic. But once in a while, we do have to part with some old stuff, though with a pang, to make room for the new. I donate to old age homes or other institutions, but these days, even libraries do not want books! This means we have to be really choosy in acquiring new books!