Monday, October 22, 2018

Jottings - Slice of life - 242 ( Dr Sigmund freud and Fazil’s masterpiece)

Jottings - Slice of life - 242 ( Dr Sigmund freud and Fazil’s masterpiece)
( A word to my readers : My essays are progressively getting longer and longer. I apologize. But on a postive note, I am sure there are readers who would want to read ( in the original sense the word was meant to be understood) with active involvement , not just glance through and will find time in their busy schedules to accommodate this task. Hopefully, the time you invest will not go in vain. Thanks for your patience)
In 1900, a book appeared that was to change the way human mind was perceived. Dr Sigmund Freud, an Austrian doctor , handed “The interpretations of dreams” to his publisher in 1899, but the editor sensing the historic connotation of the book and its place in human thought, chose to release the book of few hundred copies in 1900. How wise!!. It was a book whose influence continue to be be felt even today, and Freud is best known for this work among the dozens he penned during his long career. It is interesting that Freud ended this epochal book with a quotation from Virgil’s Aeneid “If I cannot bend the Gods on High, I will move the infernal powers below”. It was a brilliant and most apt quotation, to sum up what he had unearthed and presented to a world which felt safe and secure in its progress. The last year of Nineteenth century was filled with lot of optimism - in the sciences, in medicine, in the world order, in ideologies. There was sense of pride that Mankind, like Prometheus, managed to wrench the secrets of the universe from God, and we had overcome our base instinctual tendencies. Progress was in the air when the twentieth century began. Little did anyone know that within fifty years, two world wars, inhumane Nazi atrocities, atomic bombs, Einstein’s relativity, existential alienation, environmental pollution, marxism and its call for equality would throw the century into inner chaos. The sure steps of advancement, and the sense of human mastery over oneself and nature was to be quickly undermined by a series of catastrophic events, and serious thinkers began to wonder why and how. The depths of Human depravity under the Nazi regime that came to light during the closing years of Second world war, stunned and numbed the pride of those who insisted and persisted that Man is a rational being capable of reasoned actions only. The entire edifice of our education, sciences was based on this strong foundation of rationality. When that foundation was shaken to its roots, an explanation was sorely needed to assuage the pain, hide our shame, and understand the human mind better. Sigmund Freud had already indicated with strong evidence at an explanation in the turn of the century. “Interpretation of Dreams” made the bold claim that there is a reservoir of unconscious memories and experiences in every human brain. During dreams, these latent imprints forge a narrative to reconcile themselves with unfinished wants and expectations. What is remembered as dream is just one aspect of it, but fueling those kaleidoscopic patterns from below are stronger imprints created during infancy and boyhood, which direct and control the behavior during waking hours. Dreams are unconscious intimations of what we do consciously. This was a bold hypothesis, one that doctors have always suspected and brushed aside for over hundred years for want for proof and professional courage. Freud had both, and in the psychiatrist’s couch he demonstrated the possibility of drawing out thoughts, emotions and experiences from the inner most recesses of his patients, and bring them in touch with their source of action. In that harmonizing moment, the patient realizes with striking clarity the rational for his behavior and is no more a victim to its tenacious grip. In short, he or she is liberated and integrated to work functionally in the world outside. In one stroke, Freud broke down the distinction between mentally ill patients and normal human being. Everyone has unconsciously pulls and tugs, and those who are seemingly normal manage to keep the simmering forces of painful memories and expectations under control, but those who cannot keep the lid so tightly on the chaos inside are prone to psychotic breaks and physical manifestations of it. The carnage of the two world wars, and the unbelievable atrocities seemed to vindicated Freuds claims.
But Freud exaggerated childhood influence and oedipal complexes to explain every aspect of mental imbalance. This is where he parted ways with Jung and Adler, who proposed a broader framework for psychic integration . Under his teacher, the great Josef Breuer, Freud had early on glimpsed at the technique of free association ( allowing the patient to talk without restraint) without hypnosis - which was the standard method to treat mental disorders, and in patients Freud initially treated, he discovered that they predominantly displayed sexual abuse or unhappy childhoods. Thus his premise was formed, and he boldly extrapolated his findings. Sophocles, the Greek playwright had coined the “Oedipal” to refer to the parental infatuation, and Freud borrowed and used it in a broader sense. The “Interpretations of dreams” is a work of great literary beauty as well. Freud knew how to present his findings in elegant style to attract sensitive artists, and at the same time write with scientific rigor to appease the discerning scientist. During his lifetime, he revised the book around six times, with each iteration he continued to substantiate his initial theses, never refining any findings but adding more cases and to corroborate his original idea, despite growing evidence to the contrary. In the latter half of the twentieth century, Freud lost his place. His work was repudiated in many aspects, and most doctors do not refer to him at all in modern psychoanalysis studies. But the revolution he triggered by bringing the subject of “Unconscious” into the public domain, and giving dreams the legitimacy it deserved as source of understanding human behavior still holds good. Jung, his colleague, friend and well wisher, acknowledged Freuds work till the very end of his life, even though, his own work had gone far beyond the narrow interpretations of Freud.
With the pandora’s box of unconscious open, movies adopted the notion of a split mind with great enthusiasm. It made a perfect recipe for a mystery. Alfred Hitchcock used the dark side of the human mind to great effect in his work. “pyscho” - his masterpiece, based out of Robert Loch’s novel of the same name, is straight out of Freudian literature. The young, shy, handsome motel owner, gives vent to his abuse and humiliation in his alter ego, who dresses like a woman (his mother) and slashes any pretenders to his male counterpart’s affection. The 1991 adaption of Thomas Harris “The silence of the lambs” beautifully portrays the slow opening of Agent Clarice’s distorted and painful past in the farms of her step father by the subtle Dr. Lector - played to perfection by Anthony Hopkins. Echoes of Freud reverberate in those impeccably crafted scenes. Michael Caine in “dressed to Kill”, Hopkins again in Stephens kings’s “shining”, or Christian Bale in “American pyscho” - all of them project a self that cries out for recognition and takes devious forms in the world outside.
Indian cinema has also dabbled with this theme in few slasher movies, but no film has managed to capture the dichotomy of the human mind in as clear terms as Director Fazil did in his 1993 Malayalam movie “Manichitrathazhu” . It is difficult to write this word in english, handicapped as the language is by the lack of certain tonal constructs. Etymologically, the title refers to an ornate lock used in old Tharavadu ( ancestral homes) mansions in Kerala to lock up valuables handed over across generations. The choice of Fazil’s title is exemplary. The lock refers to those shadowy areas of the mind which are not readily bought into consciousness, and anyone who has the knack of opening those locks judiciously holds the key to infinite riches within. No title can be more appropriate to freudian idea of locked memories and experiences. Fazil’s story is based on the arrival of young couple to an ancient ancestral mansion to spend time with family. The girl, played with measured finesse, tempered eloquence and superior art, by Shobhana, is a city born girl whose parents migrate to a foreign country leaving the young girl in the care of her Grandma living in ancestral village amidst traditions, stories and rituals. In the process of growing up, Ganga’s childhood imprints of happily laying her face in the laps of her grandma, losing herself in the mythes woven so tactfully, fantasizing a world which is far away from reality - is subsumed and suppressed when she moves back to town, meets her fiancee and eventually marries him. The process of individuation, as Freud and Jung calls it, is nothing but evolving a selfhood appropriate to ones stage in life. Our childhood memories slowly fade away , not completely lost, into the mists of time and folds of the brain. When Ganga arrives at the mansion, a queer tingle surges through her veins, a remembrance so old begs to raise its head. The huge house, with its massive halls, dining rooms, curving stair cases, hidden rooms with heavily protected locks forged by rituals and mystic incantations - raises her unconscious antenna from its deep slumber. One such room on the top floor attracts her attention. It’s elaborate locks, and the advice of elders in the family against entering that chamber only serves to kindle a secret desire in Ganga to violate those dictates. Freud would have noted the awakening of childhood experiences. Ganga breaks the taboo, and enters it only to be lost in ancient patina of the room where a tragedy is supposed to have happened, and the restless soul of the deceased dancer (Nagavalli) is confined to divine sanctions secured by locks that cannot be broken at any cost. This is the right recipe for psychotic break in a girl whose memories are fragile and waiting for a vent. Unknown to her waking self, Ganga begins to lead a second life, a life which imitates Nagavalli, who again according to the story, was killed along with her lover by a jealous king. At the time of her death, Nagavalli swears revenge and plans to return on a particular festive day to exact her revenge. Therefore the need to confine her bereaving spirit. So goes the tale in the family. This apocryphal story of Nagavalli, her tragedy and the pathos strikes a resonant chord in psychologically pliant Ganga. A huge picture of Nagavalli in a mesmerizing posture of classical bharatanatyam enchants Ganga. Her hibernating memories stir to the vibrations the picture, the house and the story invokes. Very soon mysterious acts of commotion starts occurring around the mansion, and very close family members are put in dangerous and compromising positions. Ganga’s husband calls his close friend, a psychiatrist Sunny to spend time and understand what is happening. From there on, director Fazil handles the psychological drama and the gradual process of unveiling the mental sickness in Ganga quiet beautifully. There is one particular sequence, that will remain etched in collective memory forever. When Ganga’s Husband is asked by Sunny to confront his wife and bring out her alter-ego, Fazil creates an eeriness that equals Hitchcock, even surpasses it. Shobana, in those few minutes, enacts one of the greatest performances in the history of Indian cinema. Her voice, eyes, her facial expression, her bodily demeanor, almost everything about her, slowly changes as the questions from her husband get more and more uncomfortable. The rational self is unable to accommodate the gaps in her narrative, and in one poignant moment, the unconscious breaks through her normal self with terrible violence, and manifests itself in all its hissing brutality. The “other “ personality takes over completely, and audiences world wide watch with breath taking silence and incredulity the portrayal of multiple personality disorder, no matter how many times the scene is replayed. Shobhana went on to win a national award for her work, and so did the movie.
Manichitrathazhu has been remade in several regional languages with big names in important roles. None of them, in my opinion, capture even an iota of the essence Fazil framed for us. The copies may have been commercial successes, but as works of art they are no way close to Manichitrathazhu. I still remember, much after the movie was released, we had gone on a road trip to Padmanabhapuram palace near Trivandrum - where this movie was predominantly shot. We walked around those big halls, dining rooms that could accommodate more than thousand people at a time, the marbled and granite floors, darks portions of the mansion which bought out memories of Nagavalli and Fazil’s sumptuous story. The curator of the palace at that time, however, told us that they would be very careful renting this palace for any other movie production. The heavy glaring lights, the laborious shooting equipment had caused the delicate flooring to disintegrate a little. Cracks were appearing here and there. But on a parting note, I remembered the lanky, dhoti clad, curator telling us he was happy with Fazil’s work and the theme. The palace proved the right setting for his psychological drama. No artificial set could have matched the solemn atmosphere of the original.
After over hundred years, Freud’s work may be open to dispute, but what he pioneered still lingers, gathering more adherents who are better equipped to study the human mind than he was. Art has also embraced the Freudian theory and used it to its own advantage. As long as psychology exists as a separate branch of medicine, the name of Freud will live on. His contribution at a critical stage in human history was essential to bringing man back to earth again by pointing out the fragility of his proud rational self.
God bless…
yours in mortality,
Bala







Friday, October 19, 2018

Jottings - slice of life - 241 ( The nomination of a Justice to the supreme court, context, and a little commentary on the “Me too” campaigns)

Jottings - slice of life - 241 ( The nomination of a Justice to the supreme court, context, and a little commentary on the “Me too” campaigns)
From the time the declaration of Independence was signed in 1776 signaling to King George III the intentions of the pilgrims to live as an independent community, to the signing of the constitution in 1787, America and Americans had thought, cogitated, fought and wisely counseled for ten intervening years on how they should govern themselves. They borrowed the best of ideas from Europe, from France especially and constituted their own charter. However, It remains one of the greatest ironies in history that the founding fathers of the United states of America, after having spent a decade formulating, debating and refining the constitution of the country; after prolonged deliberations and persuasion managed to convince the thirteen odd fractious states to adopt a common framework of laws and institutions ; after bringing together some of greats minds of the generation - George Washington, James Madison, James Wilson and few more - into closed assembly halls of New York and Philadelphia to create statutes governing the rights and eligibility of citizens of free America; after achieving the due process of consensus established three arms of Executive, legislative and the Judiciary, and went to scope and write elaborate provisions on how to execute, legislate - did not, however, in an incomprehensible act of omission or oversight or supreme confidence or pride in the maturity of their infant republic, find it necessary to define with precision the qualifications for appointment of justice of supreme court of the Unites states of America - the supreme custodian of the national identity. All that Article 2 of the US constitution codifies regarding appointments to the highest court in the country is this: “ He (President) shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court…”
This simple statement without any frills or embellishments, interjected into statute as an adjunct , as though architects of the constitution were singularly unworried about the quality of the man selected for this high post - seems to be an inadvertent error, for which generations of Americans have paid the price of having men and women nominated and elected at the whim and fancies of the incumbent president in connivance with the Senate. The nominee could be anybody. He need not have background in Law, need not be a citizen of the United states; age is not barrier, nor is his upbringing of any importance. For every other appointment in the constitution , there are clear standards for nomination - including the President; but not for the justices of Supreme court. Additionally, the constitution set the original number of Justices serving anytime at nine; but again, the architects of the constitution gave the President and the congress powers to vary that number as needed. Presidents who needed judicial support to further their own agenda have sought to use this power indiscriminately - often successfully. In 1800, Thomas Jefferson, the most uncanny President of them all, increased the bench by two, in 1837 Andrew Jackson altered the number to suit his convenience, and in more recent times Franklin Roosevelt after his dream first term attempted to increase the numbers of Justices to further his “New deal” agenda. Roosevelt failed; but the point is that the constitution gives the President and the congress the ability to frame the national agenda on vital issues by packing the Supreme court benching with nominations leaning towards their own party ideologies or personal preferences at that time.
It was only during Nixon era and after that broad guidelines on who can be nominated came into being. Mind you, these were not mandated by law, but arose out of common belief that some basic criteria were required to occupy positions of the highest court in the land. That a nominee should be from a legal background, should have adjudicated matters of national concern and arbitrated in a fair manner, should be a member of the inner circle of the party and President, should also have a moral standing in community at the time of the nomination - these were the broad consensus on who could be nominated.
At 53, the handsome and articulate Brett Kavanaugh possesses all the qualifications necessary to be nominated and confirmed by the Senate. A top class Yale graduate, independent counsel, part of the commission which produced the Starr report urging the impeachment of Bill Clinton, part of President Bush’s inner circle of administration whetting judicial nominees, nominated to Court of appeals in early 2000 with distinguished track record in lower courts with notable ruling in wide ranging issues including areas of abortion, environment laws, free speech and civil liberties, written over 300 legal opinions on matters of national interest in a judicial tenure of 12 years, composed dissenting decision on past Presidents actions when constitutional law preponderated over parochial concerns. There is nothing in his professional career which can be cause for disqualification. Its Presidents Trump good fortune, that two supreme court vacancies turned up in his first two years at office, and both his nominations went through the senate process. This is the tradition since the day the republic was born, and practiced by no less than a president than Abraham Lincoln, who subtly recommended and sought to fill vacancies with people resonating with his own political views. In those days, not much was known about the inner process of appointments, but in our age, the whole drama is played out under the glare of public scrutiny.
I listened to senator collins’s speech at the Senate floor, and I think she hit the right note when she said: “ I have always opposed litmus tests for judicial nominees with respect to their personal views or politics, but I fully expect them to be able to put aside any and all personal preferences in deciding the cases that come before them”. This is the right approach to consider a nominee for any official position for great merit - whether it be in public service or private enterprise, unless there is grave moral deficiency in the present character of the nominee that debars him from such an office. To open cupboards, and let out thirty years old skeletons may seem very sensational and right thing to do; but not many can pass the litmus test of such a scrutiny. Christine Blasey ford was certainly speaking the truth, it was evident that she had been sexually assaulted; but at this distance of time, neither she or anybody else has any conclusive evidence that Brett Kavanaugh was the man. Her evidence, and her demeanor throughout this case was one of self-doubt heavily bolstered and egged on by politicians who had their own axes to grind and had little regard for Ms ford’s present, past or future. Now that Brett Kavanaugh is on the supreme court, I pray that Ms Ford gets back to normal life.
This surging world wide wave of “Me too” campaign is great and much needed in the times we live. Nobody should be sexually touched without their concern - male or female. This is the biological law, let alone social, moral and ethical. It is encouraging to see women opening up on their sexual abuses to wide eyed and sensation seeking couch potatoes in tear filled interviews on public media. It does bring in sympathy, restraint, civility and gender corrections to the discourse, and sometimes can add a touch of spotlight or help boost declining or fledging careers; but let us also be careful where we draw the line between where truth begins and fiction ends. While all attempts must be made to establish the truth of sexual assaults and inappropriate behavior, and initiate whatever corrective action is appropriate; we must be careful about our definitions, context and the nature of our professions. We are inclined ( and we must) to believe the victim when they talk openly about a male member, and nine out of ten times, the accusation is likely to be true. At the same time, we should also look at the redressing the balance holistically. By persistently tugging at one end of the string, we are likely to distort the shape of it. This is the case with gender imbalances and resulting accusations.
Coming back to my topic, I would like share with another insight from Senator Collins during her speech, that touched upon the role technology and social media plays in fueling our grievances, anger and ill will. Towards the end of her speech, she said: “When some of our best minds are seeking to develop even more sophisticated algorithms designed to link us to websites that only reinforce and cater to our views, we can only expect our differences to intensify”. The Brett Kavanaugh case wouldn’t have reached this level of frenzy, if not for the constant bombardment of our senses and intellect from different sources. Hysteria is the term doctors used in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to refer whipped up passions based on a trigger. Once the juggernaut starts rolling downhill, there is no stopping it, unless one steps out of way, look at it from a distance, and embrace the bigger picture. Perspective kicks in, and we see things in newer light.
In 1841, Charles Mackay, a Scottish poet, journalist and student of Human nature, wrote a great book, which sadly is not found in many bookshelves today. It is titled “ Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”. A thick book that documents all the major cases of hysteria in recorded human history, which has its trigger in economic, social, religious and ethical concerns. It is a wonderful book, written in great style and energy, and can be quite appropriate for our current age. I have it with me by my bedside, and dip into its pages whenever I get emotionally carried away by something I have seen, read or heard. To read about frenzies that have taken hold of man over the ages, and the foolish mental traps we fall into based on hearsay, can be quite redeeming. In one of the most striking observations in the book, Charles Mackay writes:
“Of all the offspring of Time, Error is the most ancient, and is so old and familiar an acquaintance, that Truth, when discovered, comes upon most of us like an intruder, and meets with the intruder's welcome..”
I think the above statement sums it all.
God bless…
yours in mortality,
Bala

Monday, October 1, 2018

Jottings - Slice of life - 239 ( The unconditional opening of spiritual doors at Sabarimala)

Jottings - Slice of life - 239 ( The unconditional opening of spiritual doors at Sabarimala)
The problem with organized religion of any kind is that it quickly loses its religiosity, and descends into mechanical rituals, stagnant dogma, archaic ideas, relentless fanaticism and unfettered authoritarianism. Furthermore such institutions become extended arms of the state, and seek to achieve political and social gains by exercising the machinery of religious systems. Edward Gibbon, the great historian whose panoramic view of Rome’s rise and fall, still resonates across ages writes in the second book of his voluminous history “ The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher as equally false; and by the magistrate as equally useful”. His words apply even today to all organized religions. A study of Human civilization has demonstrated, again and again, that the truth Man seeks within, cannot be touched through any formal means. In J Krishnamurti’s words “ truth is a pathless land…”; at best, popular religions and its strict rules of conduct can lend a hand in keeping society on track preventing simmering tendencies of crime and anarchy from bubbling up. It doesn’t serve the purpose of religious awakening — if there is anything like it at all. The great mystics of all ages, the men and women who managed to breakthrough the shackles of thought are ironically those who have cast aside the burden of their own faiths, or transcended them through a truer understanding of essence of life.
The issue of celibacy, and the spiritual motif of pilgrimage have been strong pillars of organized faith throughout history. While celibacy, sex, repression, control over impulses, natural biological rhythms and all the rest of it have always had a predominantly female bias applicable to women in reproductive age and not so much to men who could get away with anything; pilgrimages have fortunately been open to both sexes . Whether it be the yearning of the muslims to bow their heads at mecca at least once during their life time or the christians wanting to kiss the holy sepulcher at Vatican or holy spots around Jerusalem, women always had the religious sanction to make these holy trips, not as a concession but as a human right. Of three major religions of the world - Christian , Islam and Hinduism, it is Hinduism alone which imposes the maximum number of restrictions on the female, especially, religious injunctions affecting normal day to day life. The Menstrual cycle, which common sense reveals, as a necessary biological function to help continue the species, has always come under tremendous scrutiny and manipulation by the Hindus. That a female who menstruates is unclean is indoctrinated from childhood, so much so, it becomes part of the girl’s psyche affecting her in innumerable ways throughout life. Her very being is dictated by the rhythms and peculiarities of these few days in the month. Coming-of-age rites are not uncommon in human history. Such rites signified the time girls can start reproducing , nothing more. There were no moral caveats or social restrictions to it. To the contrary, the girl often gains higher position in the community after her maturity. She is treated with great respect, and often given more responsibilities and access to social and family affairs than earlier. But in India, even today through some convoluted interpretations of caste and creed over millennia, when the girls attains physical maturity, she loses her freedom to remain as she was, and worse still, her life style, living interactions, freedom and thinking is restricted. Elaborate ceremonies are established, family and friends congregate, evocative prayers and rituals are performed, clothes are conspicuously exchanged underlining the need for “modesty”. The young girl going through this period feels the burden of thousands of years descending on her young shoulders crushing forever the inner springs of joy and freedom hitherto enjoyed. Families living in the cities with access to modern education and lifestyle have to large extent moved away from this spectacle. But vast majority of India still lives in its rural townships, and in that conservative and traditional surroundings this archaic and throttling tale is daily repeated in millions of household. It is women living at the edges of metropolitan cities, who often feel the brunt of all that is outdated, irrelevant and discardable. Modernity escapes this net.
The recent judgement of the Supreme court of India to allow Women of all ages to visit Sabarimala - holy shrine for vast majority of Indian ( Hindus and Non-hindus who have to provide a written affidavit that they are believers) is ground breaking, and a long awaited ruling. For years now, this mountain shrine has been protective of who can visit and who cannot. Traditionalist will argue that religious practices and injunctions cannot fall under legal jurisdiction, and religious priests who run the show are free to stipulate conditions as fit; However, it is important to realize that public spaces, especially places of worship cannot be discriminated against. When the democratic constitution of American was debated and written, James Madison, one of founding fathers , wrote: “…the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his religion according to the dictates of conscience is held by the same tenure with all our other rights”. The key here is equal legal right of every citizen - male or female or transexual-to do what one chooses to do, including religious views ad practices. To forcibly prevent women between 10 years and 50 years from not entering a place of religious worship even if they have the religious fervor and inclination to do so is clearly unacceptable. Shamefully , such a rule has prevailed for decades now in Sabarimala. Over the years, there have several instances when officiating priests and volunteers have blocked women on suspicion of being unclean. I shudder to think we still consider ourselves democratic. Women must have the freedom to choose in all matters. They can, out of their own will and volition, refrain from going to Sabarimala, if uncomfortable with their bodily condition . That is their choice and concern. But to quasi legally prevent a devout women to undertake a pilgrimage by means of contrived and baseless religious injunctions, and to threaten divine retribution if found violating, is nothing short of diabolic. I am reminded of the Spanish inquisition. Worship should be open to all, without any bias . This is the fundamental truth of all religions , if at all there is one.
The problem, however, in a country like India ,where the judgements of the Apex court are sometimes treated casually or with indifference, such landmark decisions may not have any effect on what happens on the field. Within days of the ruling, strong Hindu groups have issued statements gently issuing threats to those who wish to violate age old customs, or subtly hinted that they cannot guarantee what conservative temple-goers may do when they see women trying to cross traditional boundaries based on this decision. In other words, there is a possibility of harassment or emotional violence on women enroute to Sabarimala. In that dense human chain inching up the narrow forest pathways up the hill , with bodies pushing and jostling against other, anything could happen. History is testimony that sabarimala has had stampedes in the past, and with ruling such as these, more can be expected. After all, there is a God who can be angry over what mortals do! And all calamities can be conveniently relegated to divine retribution!!.
When I got up today morning, I set out to write an essay on a different topic; but as I started typing, what emerged was this piece. The first line of this essay was the one I woke up with. I dont know what went on subconsciously that led to this line; but somehow , as hemmingway said about writing” All you have to do is to write one true sentence.….”, So i put down that line, and the rest followed without interruption.
God bless…
yours in mortality,
Bala