Scratching the Surface of the Temporal Goose Hole

I really enjoyed reading Vedanta Desika’s Hamsasandesa. It was a poem full of the rasa for love-in-separation. I thought it was beautifully described and pleasurable to read. Reading the Bronner and Shulman article I was struck with how intricate they believed to poem to be. All the complex fluid temporality was a little over the top, did the author really think about all this? If so it makes a very elaborate poem.

It goes along with the belief that there are many layers of enjoyment of aesthetic experience. There is even reference inside the text to this understanding of the difference between an audience of learned experts versus philistines. “No real poet will open his mouth (or beak) for an audience of boors.” (1.47) I always enjoy little verses such as this - so sorry Vedanta Desika if you think we are boors reading your poetry today!

A philistine such as myself – who is uninitiated in the school of literature, uninitiated in the particular religious school of thought, and distanced by culture and centuries - can enjoy the work for its descriptions of love. Yet there are many more layers one can experience. Local people recognize the landmarks, bhakti devotees of Rama revel in the oneness with their god, whose love with Sita turns into his love for all of his followers. Etc.

The regional bias was quite obvious, but done in a rather pleasant manner. For example see 1.18. The Eastern rout above Tamil Nadu is faulted because it is far too scenic “place after place will dazzle your eyes.” I found the innocent distaste with Kerala humorous, as I have quite a few Malayalam friends who always make fun of Tamils. The animosity must have gone both ways for a very long time!

I once went to a hill station with some Malayalis - looking over Tamil Nadu they would exclaim how horrible it looked over there and how much prettier the western side of the Ghats appeared from our vantage point. This passage reminded me of this experience! Because I have indeed been to this area I appreciated this verse on a more personal level. This illustrates the local nature of this poetry, someone who has not seen the land from above – and they don’t need a mythical magic chariot to see amazing views of the lands, nor do they need to be a goose or cloud! – would not have as much of a connection as someone from the region. Also, because the author is evoking the feelings of animosity between the two groups of people, representing the Tamil side, a Malayali would probably not appreciate the aesthetic value at the same level as one from Tamil Nadu!

Rereading the poetry after reading the Bronner and Shulman article I did find more symbolism in the poetry, yet I remain at a loss for understanding the complicated temporality they discuss. At first I questioned whether or not these bizarre complexities were actually present, particularly when I got to page 21 of their article. Did Vedanta Desika really put the effort into cresting such time travel? Was he aware of what he had created – this so called “fractured, highly complex, multi-directional temporality” (pg. 22) of “goose-time” (pg. 21)? It seemed so easy for this to be a simple mistake - an innocent chronological blunder. The story of the Ramayana is ubiquitously known in the world this poem was written in, it could so easily be over looked that there are references to the past as present and the future as the past. Yet time is mentioned in the poem itself. This may signal to us that the author is aware of the complexities created in his poem. “Time itself is in a hurry, eager to lead me to you.” (2.41) This is not a direct reference to the complexities described in Bronner and Shulman’s article, but it is a reference to time – making the probability of their argument slightly more acceptable.

I found it fascinating how Bronner and Shulman related this bizarre time travel or temporal fluidity present in the Hamsasandesa to the omnipresent of god (see page 22). It is interesting how the bhakti elements of this poem can also be emphasized. The time represented is the time experienced by no mere mortal. Rama is god and the entire universe is known to him. Again this mystic nature is beautifully present in 2.40. In reading this we all become Sita, we all become lovers of Rama “our bodies touch in the southern wind... We live together in a single home – the world, the earth is the one bed we share.”

I found pleasure simply reading this poem with no understanding of its complexities. When I read Bronner and Shulman’s article I had my doubts at first. Much of their temporal arguments seemed far too bizarre to really make sense. The poem seems too simple and straight forward for it to be so complex. Yet at further investigation there are definite layers present, and I believe I have personally only scratched the surface.