मेघदूत: "नीचैर्गच्छत्युपरि च दशा चक्रनेमिक्रमेण"
समर्थ शिष्या अक्का : "स्वामीच्या कृपाप्रसादे हे सर्व नश्वर आहे असे समजले. पण या नश्वरात तमाशा बहुत आहे."
G C Lichtenberg: “It is as if our languages were confounded: when we want a thought, they bring us a word; when we ask for a word, they give us a dash; and when we expect a dash, there comes a piece of bawdy.”
C. P. Cavafy: "I’d rather look at things than speak about them."
Martin Amis: “Gogol is funny, Tolstoy in his merciless clarity is funny, and Dostoyevsky, funnily enough, is very funny indeed; moreover, the final generation of Russian literature, before it was destroyed by Lenin and Stalin, remained emphatically comic — Bunin, Bely, Bulgakov, Zamyatin. The novel is comic because life is comic (until the inevitable tragedy of the fifth act);...”
सदानंद रेगे: "... पण तुकारामाची गाथा ज्या धुंदीनं आजपर्यंत वाचली जात होती ती धुंदी माझ्याकडे नाहीय. ती मला येऊच शकत नाही याचं कारण स्वभावतःच मी नास्तिक आहे."
".. त्यामुळं आपण त्या दारिद्र्याच्या अनुभवापलीकडे जाऊच शकत नाही. तुम्ही जर अलीकडची सगळी पुस्तके पाहिलीत...तर त्यांच्यामध्ये त्याच्याखेरीज दुसरं काही नाहीच आहे. म्हणजे माणसांच्या नात्यानात्यांतील जी सूक्ष्मता आहे ती क्वचित चितारलेली तुम्हाला दिसेल. कारण हा जो अनुभव आहे... आपले जे अनुभव आहेत ते ढोबळ प्रकारचे आहेत....."
Kenneth Goldsmith: "In 1969 the conceptual artist Douglas Huebler wrote, “The world is full of objects, more or less interesting; I do not wish to add any more.”1 I’ve come to embrace Huebler’s ideas, though it might be retooled as “The world is full of texts, more or less interesting; I do not wish to add any more.” It seems an appropriate response to a new condition in writing today: faced with an unprecedented amount of available text, the problem is not needing to write more of it; instead, we must learn to negotiate the vast quantity that exists. How I make my way through this thicket of information—how I manage it, how I parse it, how I organize and distribute it—is what distinguishes my writing from yours."
Tom Wolfe: "The first line of the doctors’ Hippocratic oath is ‘First, do no harm.’ And I think for the writers it would be: ‘First, entertain.’"
विलास सारंग: "… इ. स. 1000 नंतर ज्या प्रकारची संस्कृती रुढ झाली , त्यामध्ये साधारणत्व व विश्वात्मकता हे गुण प्राय: लुप्त झाले...आपली संस्कृती अकाली विश्वात्मक साधारणतेला मुकली आहे."
3 comments:
Sorry about extracting an inference from a post that was referring to an entirely different context. However, I don't see how you could defend this post in the light of the cartoon you used to point the delays in securing justice in India.
You didn't reply to the comment I posted there. However, sometime before that post you had published a post suggesting that Sant Ramdas' contributions were being unfairly denigrated for casteist reasons. Some time after that post you have written glowingly about Mahatma Phule's literary contributions.
As you might be well aware Mahatma Phule was instrumental in denigrating Ramdas' contributions. It was he who suggested that Ramdas might have been responsible for keeping Shivaji away from a Shudra saint like Tukaram. It was again Phule who in order to further his political agenda, which I think was necessary during the time of Brahmin hegemony, tried to whitewash the contributions of Dadoji Kondadev by writing in his powadas something to the tune of a fish does not need a coach (guru) for swimming. Given that Phule did all this with a blatantly partisan and mischievous agenda, I don't understand how you can write about Phule glowingly (and I assume defend his freedom of speech to write about Brahmins the way he preferred to) and yet castigate Hussian, who for all of Durga Bhagwat's mischaracterisations has actually studied the epics that he has supposedly denigrated for furthering an agenda which is purportedly no different in context than the one furthered by Phule.
I have not read what you say but it's likely that Phule said all that.
And may be he was right.
He was great and so too was Samarth Ramdas. Maharashtra is blessed to have leaders like them in the past. What is good about Marathi culture is thanks to giants like them.
V K Rajwade lambasted Marathi saints but it does not reduce importance of either him or the saints. Read Vinoba's book on the subject.
Great men are not right about every-thing, every-time.
For me MFH has not read even basic Ramayana. And he just is a mischief monger.
nice article. I would love to follow you on twitter.
Post a Comment