Carnatic music is built around religion. Rare is a composition that is not about any one of the Hindu gods. For all purposes then this classical music is also devotional music. To borrow a word from Christianity, it was ecclesiastical.
Into my teenage years, as I started questioning religion, the agnosticism spilled over into the appreciation of this music as well. I suppose I was consistent in my approach in questioning whether one could be into the music without being in the religion.
I was provided with a wonderful real example of this puzzle--following some of controversies related to the musician KJ Yesudas. Born into a Catholic family, Yesudas took up carnatic music and was a student of one of the most accomplished musicians. Yesudas' involvement with this Hindu music drew ire from the Catholic religious leaders, who even threatened him with excommunication. The Catholic logic was that by singing bhajans and carnatic music compositions in temples, Yesudas was straying far away from the monotheism of Christianity. The excommunication never happened, but all those developments made me think that much more about religion and carnatic music even as I was questioning the concept of "god" itself.
In fact, one of the compositions by Thyagaraja clearly lays out the relationship between carnatic music and devotion:
Sangeetha gnanamu Bhakthi vinaa, San margamu kaladhe , Oh ManasaThe lyrics further note that this music is a mode of worship.
(The knowledge of music, without devotion (bhakthi) is not the right path, oh mind)
The more I moved away from religion--not merely Hinduism, but any religion and god--the more I was naturally disconnecting from this classical music as well.
Over the decades, I have pretty much lost any interest in carnatic music, and it is only the intellectual curiosities about the music that remain within me. Every time I visit India, which is almost always in December, I am often presented with opportunities to think about this question of bhakthi in carnatic music--it is also in December that Chennai hosts the huge music festival, and there are programs on television as well. One of the TV programs features Q/A sessions with musicians. Without fail, there is always a question about the role of bhakthi in the music, and every musician who has taken that question emphasizes that without bhakthi there cannot be any music. It is like listening to baseball players responding to questions when you know exactly what their response is going to be.
A few months ago, I was talking with a cousin and her husband about religion and god, and I laid out this aspect of carnatic music--she is heavily into it. I wondered if ever there would ever be a secularization of carnatic music. A reformation of sorts. She seemed intrigued!
The bhakthi is so strong that a jazzy improvisation that Susheela Raman does in her sultry voice with a carnatic classic, nagumomu, might be considered blasphemy. (Maybe I ought to ask for that cousin's opinion here.)
Oh well ... as much as an atheist that I am, one of my favorite pieces from music in this part of the world drips with religion all the way: Handel's Messiah.
All across the world, literature and the arts grew within religious frameworks. Camille Paglia has often made this point, and she has done that with her usual vast knowledge and clarity. A confirmed atheist, Paglia points out, and I am in complete agreement with her, that the works that resulted from this framework have been phenomenal, both in quantity and quality.
To fully appreciate world art, one must learn how to respond to religious expression in all its forms. Art began as religion in prehistory. It does not require belief to be moved by a sacred shrine, icon, or scripture. Hence art lovers, even when as citizens they stoutly defend democratic institutions against religious intrusion, should always speak with respect of religion. Conservatives, on the other hand, need to expand their parched and narrow view of culture.
Like her, despite (or because of) my atheistic beliefs, I too worry that in education we don't emphasize enough a deep understanding of religions. Paglia goes one more step and writes:
Great art can be made out of love for religion as well as rebellion against it. But a totally secularized society with contempt for religion sinks into materialism and self-absorption and gradually goes slack, without leaving an artistic legacy.
Maybe someday there will be a body of secular carnatic music that was borne out of the rebellion against Hinduism? You think? Nah!
14 comments:
As a student of carnatic music while also being an atheist I think I hope am in a position to answer this question. I have gained a certain level of proficiency in Carnatic music learning both violin from a very renowned artist who's name I would like to keep secret for sake of privacy concerns. I was a very proficient vocalist as a child and have performed in the Madras Music academy youth festivals amongst other reputable venues.
Carnatic music is definitely very religious and compositional in nature. And I think this is the primary reason why we haven't been able to reach out as much as Hindustani music to the non-familiar ear. Anyway moving on to your question, I do definitely think that it is possible to become a carnatic music maestro as an atheist. Every kind of music(especially carnatic music) has a technical and emotional component, which is not necessarily connection to religious or supernatural thought. With the rise in involvement of youth within the field, and increase in education and critical thinking; I am willing to wager on the assumption that there probably are already atheists in the carnatic music field.
Instrumental music (although still relying on composition) is especially sort of secular as one relies on the tune rather the word for musical experience. Carnatic music in its current form is a rather young classical art, although it's roots might be ancient. Who is to say where the field might be given that there is much experimentation and evolution in the coming decades. And definitely would predict and hope that carnatic music become open to more secular and non religious representations in terms of compositions and improvisation.
Finally I do definitely think that devotion is necessary to convey a musical experience. But I mean this in the sense of commitment and dedication to one's cause rather than the religious connotations the word.
As a student of carnatic music while also being an atheist I think I hope am in a position to answer this question. I have gained a certain level of proficiency in Carnatic music learning both violin from a very renowned artist who's name I would like to keep secret for sake of privacy concerns. I was a very proficient vocalist as a child and have performed in the Madras Music academy youth festivals amongst other reputable venues.
Carnatic music is definitely very religious and compositional in nature. And I think this is the primary reason why we haven't been able to reach out as much as Hindustani music to the non-familiar ear. Anyway moving on to your question, I do definitely think that it is possible to become a carnatic music maestro as an atheist. Every kind of music(especially carnatic music) has a technical and emotional component, which is not necessarily connection to religious or supernatural thought. With the rise in involvement of youth within the field, and increase in education and critical thinking; I am willing to wager on the assumption that there probably are already atheists in the carnatic music field.
Instrumental music (although still relying on composition) is especially sort of secular as one relies on the tune rather the word for musical experience. Carnatic music in its current form is a rather young classical art, although it's roots might be ancient. Who is to say where the field might be given that there is much experimentation and evolution in the coming decades. And definitely would predict and hope that carnatic music become open to more secular and non religious representations in terms of compositions and improvisation.
Finally I do definitely think that devotion is necessary to convey a musical experience. But I mean this in the sense of commitment and dedication to one's cause rather than the religious connotations the word.
I am atheist and have been for over 25 years. I was though, an ardent carnatic music fan since I was eight years old. The atheism came later. My atheism however has not got in the way of my love for Indian classical music. Music moves the soul. I can enjoy the tune without being tied to the religious aspect of it. The way I see it, at the time the music was composed, religion was the inspiration which drove them to compose some amazing music. Well, that was then. Ustand Rashid Khan singing Hindustani classical is a great example of how true love for music doesnt know religion!
Best
Raj
Waiting for irreligious music
The only reason why people think carnatic music is religious(devotional is different) is because of the words.why do we have to think of words as merely religious poetry.Are the words sung like they are read out?no.there is a special sound that each word gives that brings out the beauty of a note.That is why great musicians never refrained from moulding words to suit the melodic geometry of a raga.So compositions are not just of religious relevance.This was also said by tm krishna in one of his interviews.As far as devotional element is concerned,every music has its own aesthetics.most of modern Hindustani is pleasure oriented(the royal court) while most of carnatic is devotion(temple) oriented.Not many people are lured towards devotion as they are to pleasure so carnatic is not as popular as Hindustani.devotion is different from involvement or commitment.With devotion you don't exist anymore..That is why carnatic music strikes a chord among few such people who don't know the meaning of words or even that they are religious.
PS: I don't believe is religion but I believe in divine
Looks like from time to time, this post attracts a few visitors, some of whom also end up commenting. Cool!
The Hindustani Tarana, for instance, is all about the music that was composed in which the words are, for all purposes, irrelevant. The Sufis, especially Amir Khusro who invented this style of singing eight centuries ago, found it to be divine as well.
In the Carnatic, there is emphasis on the lyrics. The words of the traditional composition are all about the Hindu faith, the gods, ... Most, if not all, musicians repeatedly refer to the lyrics and the gods, and very few (with people like TM Krishna) seem to want to go beyond those words and the gods. Which is also why most musicians refer to the "bhakti"--they are not referring to an abstract notion of bhakti to the music, but bhakti that the traditional Hindu faith promotes.
This very particular Hindu divinity of music is different from when the divinity and peace and happiness that the Sufis found in music. Or when Amjad Ali Khan creates magic with his sarod, or when Ustad Rashid Khan sings ... Now, of course, all these are personal preferences, which I don't question. My post was to highlight how one might not be able to take the Hindu religion out of Carnatic music ... btw, TM Krishna writes about the caste issues as well in his book, but that is beyond the scope of this blog-post ;)
Carnatic music without bhakti is like taking food without knowing what you are eating. It won't digest. Bhakti is the soul of carnatic music. Bereft of Bhakti it cannot be called carnatic music.
What is wrong with Bhakthi? If one understands the purpose of life or the purpose of yoga, then one will understand Bhakthi also. Yoga is not exercise; it is a worship. In the same way, carnatic music cannot be secular. It is sacred.
Ramanathan
Yoga is not worship. Yoga is a wonderful way to exercise. However, the point is that people are delusional if they believe that it is only the physical appearance that matters. Hence, the meditative aspect of yoga. But, we need to separate out such an approach to life from "worship."
As for bhakthi in Carnatic music, TM Krishna has said and written way more about this and in an awesomely knowledgeable manner than I can ever attempt to ... One of his recent essays was perhaps remarkably controversial even for him:
http://www.caravanmagazine.in/reportage/ms-understood-ms-subbulakshmi
Here's an excerpt:
"The release in 1963 of MS’s recording of the Venkateshwara Suprabhatham was a popular coup. But it was musical free-fall as far as the serious listener was concerned. This, however, did not prevent MS from continuing to release many recordings in the religious and devotional genres."
I disagree with your viewpoint that yoga is exercise. It is not. Exercise involves exertion. Yoga is exhileration (bliss). Yoga is meditation. In exercise there is no breath awareness. Yoga insists on breathing with awareness. Yoga asanas should be done initially with some effort, then as one masters each asana, it becomes effortless, just like the ability to drive becomes effortless after some experience.
Sage Patanjali who wrote the Yoga Sutras had only one goal in mind. Which is to reach Kaivalya, the ultimate bliss. Exercise will not take you there. Often exercise is done with great struggle. In yoga one strives for excellence, but never struggles!
Sage Patanjali also insists on faith in iswarapranidhana. The journey is from svara (breath) to Iswara. Bhakthi is an essential element in all ancient art forms, such as yoga, classical music, and dance (bharatanatyam).My 125 year old yoga teacher used to say that running is for horses; yoga is for humans.
What happens in the modern era with regard to yoga practice is different. Hereagain one should differentiate between the yoga classes that are offered in authentic yoga studios as opposed to yoga offered in the gym. Yoga is sacred, not secular.
If you want to discuss this further, please email me at Ramaraj2006@gmail.com.
My name is Perinkulam Ramanathan
You write "In exercise there is no breath awareness" ... that is incorrect. Whether it is lifting weights, or running, or swimming, breath awareness is key.
You write "Often exercise is done with great struggle. In yoga one strives for excellence, but never struggles!" ... that is so dismissive of practitioners of other exercises.
Whether it is your comments about yoga, or about music and other fine arts, your point is clear--it is all about the spiritual. I agree with you that exercises and the arts can do wonders for the mind, and to achieve a kind of peace and tranquility that the external world cannot provide. However, there is no need for "bhakthi" in any of these. And that is where we differ.
So let us agree to disagree.
However, I would suggest you read "the purpose of yoga" by Gopi Krishna and also read "yoga, the Universal Science" by Swami Krishnananda of Divine Life Society which is a summary of Sage Patanjali Yoga Sutras, the first book of psychology written 2500 years ago, still valid even today.
Or you can listen to Swami Sarvapriyananda's talk in youtube called "Defining God" or "Who am I?" which is bound to clear any doubts.
If you still refuse to have faith in an orderly universe made possible by a creative principle, I have no further comment.
Then I leave you with your own beliefs.
Thank you for the oppotunity to comment.
Ramanathan
Yes, thanks for the discussions. That's exactly what I look forward to.
Mr. Ramanathan,
To have opinions is normal. But to pontificate as though they are some sacred revealed truths or facts, is without reason. Carnatic rasikas often sound out their opinions vociferously and dogmatically, cutting apart anyone who thinks otherwise. It is a very difficult and unforgiving environment for a student like me to grow in.
Firstly, your comparison of digestion to bhakti is factually incorrect. If you were to eat a fruit unknown to you, you bet your body will still be able to digest it. Whether you feel comfortable eating it or relish the taste of it is a completely different matter. But there is nothing intrinsically obstructing the process of digestion.
Secondly, there would be few who disagree with the statement that carnatic music is overtly religious with regards the lyrical content. But whether it can be transformed to suit a secular setting is certainly a valid area of exploration for artists. And I have no doubt that it will also change, following a arc of progression similar to that in western classical music. Western classical music is very secular in the modern context. And can carnatic music be moving when performed in a secular manner? This is a matter of taste. But certainly TM. Krishna is a shinning example. He is constantly able to move the orthodox with his music, yet if you read through the lines he comes out an atheist.
My hope in general is for the religious listeners to set their dogmas aside and honestly gauge if the music is appealing to you. If you come in with preconceptions about the art and/or artist, you are benefiting no one and robbing yourself of a valuable aesthetic human experience. Be it qawalli, jazz, flamenco, bollywood, carnatic, or whatever else kind of music, there is amazing artistry to be found and felt everywhere.
While I am not a believer, we need to keep in mind that faith means exactly that: "they are some sacred revealed truths or facts" ... to question those sacred truths means one is an infidel ... which is why "reason" does not have a place after some point in the discussions.
The yoga comparison was a distraction. We could have engaged in discussions about the music alone, and could have inquired more into whether the music can be performed and appreciated in a secular manner. I believe it can happen. When I think about one of the favorites of my father's--Madurai Mani--well, in his performances there was a lot of the "jazz"-like elements that were all about the music and not about the gods. Similar to Ella Fitzgerald's scat ... If Carnatic music were not about the gods and the Hindu religion, with a highly brahminical tilt as well, and if it were instead rendered secular, the music has plenty to offer ...
Post a Comment