We credit the bravado of expressing our popping thoughts in immediate language smelling of fresh nascence. But in reality it is proven that the bravado is hollow, and worshiping that cleverness is devoid of the support of our soul.
I have my doubts about something there. What about this affair of mutating thoughts into language of freshness? Would this be limited to the use of words pertaining to sex? Does nascent word mean the phallus or the vagina only? Admitted we have a false prejudice against this pair of words, it would still be refuted that novel nuance often wheels around these two subjects only.
Sexuality is a strong and significant causality abounding our lives. Enough stress is given upon this subject, and it is justified. At least by the current standards of affairs. But the form of sexual exposure is reflected in life in many ways. Out of the same man becomes either a lover, a lunatic or a languishing venereal patient—this may entail sufficient scope for pondering, and actually there is so. There is no hypocrisy in realizing that scope. But it would be most lamentable if we exclusively consider words like vagina or sodomy as smart words and discard the rest as insipid. That would mean compromising with conscience.
I would like to emancipate the repressed emotions, their transcendence, through newborn language or coinage. We shun with care our repressed reflections and continue to do so till now. That is a sign of unhealthiness. There must be an explosion within this unwholesome environment; but that by no means imply that I must use words like ‘the clitoris’ to ensure a ready-made flow of refreshing write-ups from the tip of my pen.
I used the word ‘clitoris’ because some such words belonging to the same category have impacted my tympanum. They are just kicking up dust in a frenzied campaign to highlight my stance on sexuality. As if I have spelt out words of strength without the backing of truth.
We should accept and practice what comes naturally to us. Otherwise the whole show would seem to be falsely made-up. If a brazen bunch of aphrodisiac words could solve the issue easily, there would have been nothing else to be done at all. I have no abhorrence or allergy for such words—but their usage call for right perspective, the right place and the right time. It contracts my soul to think of my repertoire full of only such words.
The phallus and the vagina—these two are there; they will stay.
The phallus stands for man. If the phallic symbol of the male is over-handled at the cost of his other attributes, there would be a phallic dominance—but we shall miss the stimulated upsurge of male vitality which unthrottles his entire torso like an epicentre of tremendous liveliness. I have a similar statement for vagina and the female form.
The expression of art is not compartmental but holistic.
Yet there is something more to be said regarding this topic. If the monumental totality of the whole can be glimpsed in some partial experience or expression, then such revelation is adorable.
Puritanism in art and literature must be kicked out ruthlessly.
That maniac mind of the middle class suffers much repression. To release that repression through powerful expressions would bring about the intricacies of the subconscious soul. A partial depiction of it might also become truthful. But the very thought that the whole thing has to have force, that too a bullying imposition, is unacceptable.
Artists have progressed much regarding this matter through their paintings and these have remarkable integrity—that is to say, clarity of thought. But it is always depressing to think about the concept of coining particular words just for the sake of employing them. The words rape or orgasm or ye garrulousness of the coitus, all are acceptable words, but not for just using them. These may be used to express the signals from the soul. The words shall no longer be words then; they would convey passionate faith, furious rancour or vehement mistrust. That must not remain within the part and should spill over into totality—that is the earnest desire.
I do wish to involve the whole body and mind. It is not possible to live with the phallus and the vagina only. There I believe that the phallus and the vagina are not at all individual entities.
The vagina enshrine the total trust, the whelming hatred, the entire agony and the complete consciousness of woman. The vagina of the female is not only a unit but is inseparable from her whole and thus sprites forth in truth. If it was a lone unit only, it would have been limited to the pages of anatomy and physiology The truth of such places is not the truth of the whole soul. The vagina is true as a part of the female torso. Not as a separate entity; its affairs are as dynamic and drifting as of touch, smell and sound. Its conduct is made up of hate, love, jealousy and provocation. Envy, union, all are expressed, but that Is not the expression of its own. That expression transcends into the realm of truth due to its connection with the soul.
The woman’s vagina is anxious, fiery, stable and conflictive. The dejection, anxiety, agony and ecstasy of the consciousness active in every single cell of her entire body is evident in the vagina. But sans that consciousness and the maze of veins that convey it, the vagina of woman is not meaningful.
And the phallus of man is the male power manifest—sometimes melancholy, sometimes keen, enraged, restless, and sometimes else enthused at invited elation. But it is true only within the display of vitality to which it is related at root. It is not established as partial segment. The acute phallus is integrally linked with man’s potent power of will, his vigor of being, running fast inside his arteries as sanguine stream and throbbing inside his flesh and marrow—as because it is assimilated within that entire appeal, it can express the totality of male aggressiveness; anger and shame, hunger and love. Not alone but in totality, it is thus enraged, restless, fiercely poised to procreate, revealed and exposed.
I adore and congratulate whenever connects to the totality of my life. I do not consider that as singular entity. So in simple thought, wherever the agony, trust or hate from the soul is expressed as male or female power, the phallus or the vagina is projected. In briskness or in vocality, eagerness is the most desirable element.
The vagina as oblation ground and the phallus as faggot strike up the spark of life representing creation itself. So vagina is true as it is true within the truth of the body and thus may be called the oblation ground of the sacrificial worship of life. It is not so in the individual capacity—the vagina is evident as it is crowned with the essence of physical being and spiritual longing of the soul.
In the role of sacrificial wood, the phallus is similarly pronounced, proclaimed and steady. The scorching power of male body is aligned into the phallus. As the whole body thrives, the sap of life is pumped to the penis. So the phallus is manifest in truth too.
[ From the Diary of Nikhil Biswas. Diary entry: 22.04.1963. Translated by Sudipto Chakraborty]