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.”
Albert Einstein: “I am content in my later years. I have kept my good humor and take neither myself nor the next person seriously.” (To P. Moos, March 30, 1950. Einstein Archives 60-587)
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);...”
Werner Herzog: “We are surrounded by worn-out, banal, useless and exhausted images, limping and dragging themselves behind the rest of our cultural evolution.”
John Gray: "Unlike Schopenhauer, who lamented the human lot, Leopardi believed that the best response to life is laughter. What fascinated Schopenhauer, along with many later writers, was Leopardi’s insistence that illusion is necessary to human happiness."
Justin E.H. Smith: “One should of course take seriously serious efforts to improve society. But when these efforts fail, in whole or in part, it is only humor that offers redemption. So far, human expectations have always been strained, and have always come, give or take a bit, to nothing. In this respect reality itself has the form of a joke, and humor the force of truth.”
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."
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Future historians are likely to conclude that it was never made because prints of it are not available with the National Archives of India, as per Information and Broadcasting official.
Our historians now want hard proof.
That's the reason all non-Brahmin, Marathi-speaking historians are asking the government of Maharashtra to remove every reference to Dadoji Konddeo Konddev, a Brahmin ब्राह्मण as a teacher of Shivaji.
I am always deeply moved by what following passage claims:
“…Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of ancient Indian history is the humility of rulers. Even a king whose territories were as vast as Asoka's (304 BCE – 232 BCE), covering practically all of the subcontinent, hardly, even in his numerous edicts and inscriptions, mentions his own name. He is just described as “devanampiya piyadassi”, “beloved of the divine” and “one whose vision is filled with adoration”. This is not a title he had given himself; it is a term used for his father, his grandfather, other Indian kings and even for kings beyond Indian shores.
This is the same period of time when a thousand years of art does not have one portrait of a king, in sculpture or painting. The only exception was the period of the Kushanas, who hailed from southern China. They had portraits made of themselves in the 1st century A.D. After them, Indian art reverted to its traditions and the first portrait to come was 700 years later, in the time of the Pallavas, at Mamallapuram…”
(Frontline dated September 12, 2008)
But can we trust even a so-called 'proof'?!
Artist: Ed Fisher The New Yorker 26 January 1963
My caption to the cartoon above:
"I just carved- Chanakya, a Brahmin, was never a teacher of Chandragupta Maurya. This will drive them crazy in distant future."