Mar 22, 2023
Mar 22, 2023
There 'i' am Prakash Book Depot Bareilly, 2018 80 pages Price Rs 200/-
HEart Prakash Book Depot Bareilly,2019 80 pages Price Rs 220/-
The duo of “There i am” and “ He art.”
Sage Gaudapada was the guru of Shri Adi Shankara. Maundookya Upanishad, we are told, is a collection of twelve sootras. Advaita is non duality no true. It is the crown jewel of sagacity.
“There is ‘I’ am was published by Sri R M Prabhulinga Shastry in 2019. In his foreword Prof. B.S. Nimavat concluded his write-up thus: “R M Prabhulinga’s poems appeal to one’s inner consciousness. Like metaphysical poems, his poems have also inner contradictions that emphasise the fact that ultimately all contradictions merge into Harmonious ONE-which is the essence of advaitisam”.
His publication HE art is a book of the poems published in 2020. In his forward Dr.C.L. Khatri concluded: “The true liberation lies in rising above the realm of Maya. The poems in the volume are didactic, philosophical and dialectical virtually bereft of common poetic images, clichés and tropes and offers sumptuous treat for philosophic minds”.
‘It’ is “His” but not any other’s
No other could never be ‘He’
‘It’ is beyond ‘His’ but caught by “His”.
‘It’ is with ‘His’ but available for any.
‘It is of ‘His’ but not from any other.
‘It’ is from ‘His’ but not of any other.
‘It’ evolved and emitted as ‘His”.
‘It’ is know as ‘His’ and learnt alike. . (The Experience, p.11)
You at all times watch You
Whom You deem as You very oftenly.(sic)
You consistently regard You
Whom You reckon as You occasionally.
You forever observe You
Whom You judge that You are You.
You never know You
Who am “I” to whom You address You alike. (Learning Unlearning) (p17)
When confined ‘it’ or some requires or needs,
This ‘it’ would quest another some
And so would another some.
For both this ‘it’ and that ‘it’
Both this some and another some
Would occur as they would be there.
But Only “I” could never reach as
The entire space am “I” Only and
“I” could not be reached because
Only “I” never restrict or confine to any.
Because, like ‘it’ or some, there wouldn’t be
Another ‘I” or ‘I’ wouldn’t occur ever. (Unique, p. 19)
Until the ‘quest’ ends,
‘can’ won’t be established.
So, question mark (?) subsists.
Until the ‘quest’ originates,
‘can’ can’t be substantiated.
Therefore, exclamation mark (!) breathes.
Until the ‘quest’ perdures,
‘can’ wouldn’t be visualised
Ergo, full stop (.) remains. (Cause of Quest, p,26)
Reading and learning the Poem
Instantaneously translates the joy and the reminiscing
Into the enlightenment.
Stupefies to view
That translation comprehensively
How it would ?
By dint of the prospect
Nothing needs to be done
As whole thing is conceived.
This would be only
Complete and all
Though any study isn’t adequate.
Beyond that Nothing does exist.
No synonym could be derived or coined
As Nothing am “I”. (The Poem, p.30.)
Which was experienced in the past
That must be done in the present too.
The future might not be ostensible
But “could” be perceived as visible.
So, the thing could be done in Future
“can” be envisioned beyond Future also.
Therefore, whichever qualifies the thing
It is the thing to be conceded obligatorily. (Nothing Exists, p.33)
“Are you an exposer of me ?” The Poem
“Yes”, The Poet
“Why have you been grieving ?” The Poem.
“I brought out your senior too”, The Poet.
Where is She ?” The Poem.
So only, I have been doing so”. The Poet.
“Did you lose Her ?” The Poem.
“Yes I did”. The Poet.(The Last Poem, p.41)
“I”ntellect am “I”.
“I” could th’I’nk about “I”.
As both who do and am done about
Are One and the Same, “I” could be ‘I’.
“I” would be cause for ‘I’.
‘I could be mission for “I”.
“I” would be director for ‘I’
‘I’ could be player for “I”. (There ‘I’ am, p.51)
You can fly in the Sky
Even dive in the Space
When You do make up that
“I” must do so and so.
You can’t either climb or ascend
Or swim or plunge at any cost
Or fly or dive by any means
Until You ascertain You are only “I”. (“I” n You, p 57)
Only “I” would be ‘ALL’.
This ‘ALL’ had been only ‘ONE’.
Only this ‘ONE’ were ‘ALL’.
This ‘ALL’, now, is ‘all’ and are ‘all’.
That ‘all’, which precedes ‘is’,
Too ‘all’ which could precede ‘are’.
This ‘all’, which precedes ‘are’,
Also ‘all’, which could precede ‘is’.(All, All, All (p.68)
The Publication in 2020 is HE art Poems
Whoever could withstand oneself is not one only
That one would remain forever as not one
But as “I” who am only the source of all
Who flash for a while in the matter of world.
The one, which causes for all except ‘I’
To cherish illusion i.e., Maya as the Truth
Which is the chief character of “I” only, would be of ‘I’. (Maya, p.18)
He or she too does like you what you do
And draws some other as his or hers.
Yours, His or Her might be distinguished
As of you, him or her but they are only ‘I’.
Though I am personified as yours, hers or his
‘I’ am in true indivisible. (Personification. P 21)
She ever confides Him in for Those
Who obeyed His for Their dignity
And considered Him as decency of Them.
He ever be ready to renunciate for Those
Who suspect Him for sake of Theirs
And boggle His as hurdles for Them.
She ever bows to Him for only Theirs
Which delude Hers that could affect Them
For whom only He would take things on.(She for His not for Him, p.29)
You ought to learn what You are,
But You must what You were.
Admittedly You should what You will be
Then, the Now would be the Know who am ‘I’. (The Now and the Know), p.35)
He knew you.
So, regarded you.
He, learned you,
So, honoured you.
He envisioned you.
So, allowed you.
He established you.
So, He exists as “S’HE”.(His existence, p.39)
All of you make
Efforts to expose ‘I’.
‘I’ now and never be
Reached but revealed.
All of you do only
Attempt to be ‘I’.(Attempt,p.43)
Till the knowledge evolves into
Learning, You could never learn.
Evolved learning reveals that
Your ‘Self’ is only your He.
Evolved knowledge substantiates
That ‘I’ am only addressed as “He”. (You find You, p. 47)
She foots rhythmically
That levitates You.
‘I’ would do any but as ‘I’
Who do some to ‘I but as ‘I’.
So, ‘I would ever be ‘I’ not She.
Like ‘Not She ‘I’ would not be as you. (I too .. but, p.51)
He was said to have been obsessing
Those who were said to be his altogether.
Paused for a while and expressed his aversion
To see their end though they weren’t for his.
You were said to have been functioning
For the Cause which was said to be protected. (Nemesis, p. 60)
You do aspire to be ‘I’
By replacing ‘I’ by You.
Replacing ‘Want’ by ‘Renunciation’ does do so. (Then only, p.63)
When were you born ?
Yes, You too can’t tell.
Who did you beget ?
Yes, Now also same answer.
Could one, who did you, do ?
Yes, To this too reply is ‘No’.
How had you been brought up ?
Yes, Students on You might research.
How were you established as you ?
Yes, Followers of them may draw. (The Petry, p.75)
‘The doing’ made them do ‘Only doing’.
‘Only doing’ did what “The doing” schooled.
Doings of ‘Only doing” and of ‘The doing’ vied.
Earlier never succeeded and later never failed.
So, you are of ‘Yours’ but You might be affected.
Uphold Yourself unlike “He” who is from ‘failed’.( The Culture, p.80)
More by : Dr. Rama Rao Vadapalli V.B.