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.”

Friedrich Nietzsche: “Everybody wants the same, everybody is the same: whoever feels different goes voluntarily into a madhouse.”

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....."

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: "… . . 1000 नंतर ज्या प्रकारची संस्कृती रुढ झाली , त्यामध्ये साधारणत्व विश्वात्मकता हे गुण प्राय: लुप्त झाले...आपली संस्कृती अकाली विश्वात्मक साधारणतेला मुकली आहे."

Friday, November 03, 2017

बकासुर नरमास खायचा खर आणि हस्तिनापुरातील आर्य?...Bakasur's Cannibalism and Mahabharata

अरुण कोलटकर, 'द्रोण', २००२/२००४:
"... 
इन फॅक्ट
नरमांस व वानरमांस 

हे लंकेतील सर्व 
जातिवंत खवैय्यांच्या खास आवडीचे 
व मेनूमधून 

जाणीवपूर्वक वगळण्यात आलेले 
दोन पदार्थ सोडले 
तर सगळं होतं तिथं

असं म्हटलं तरी चालेल,
..."

3rd Fisherman: I marvel how the fishes live in the sea.

1st Fisherman: Why, as men do a-land; the great ones eat up the little ones.

— William Shakespeare, Pericles, 1619, act 2, scene 1

"...Bak rakshasha
The wanderings of the Pandavas led them to the village of Ekchakra. They took shelter in the house of a Brahmin.
Bak, a wicked monster, lived in the village. Every day one man from the village would carry a large portion of rice and buffalo meat for him and Bak would eat the food and the man.
Then, it was the turn of the man who had given shelter to the Pandavas. His family shed copious tears. Kunti assured them, ‘Don’t worry. Today Bheema will go, he will kill Bak.’
Bheema went to Bak and started eating Bak’s food in front of him. Bak’s blows and kicks did not interrupt Bheema’s eating. After eating to his heart’s content, Bheema turned his attention to Bak. He threw him to the ground and crushed him to death.
Hearing Bak’s screams, the monsters came rushing. Bheema roared, ‘I am warning you! If you ever eat humans again, I will kill all of you.’ The monsters said, ‘Yes sir! We promise never to do such things again.’..."

(from 'Penguin Companion to the Mahabharata', 2007, by Bishnupada Chakravarti

बकासुराची गोष्ट अर्थातच पहिल्यांदा माझ्या आईकडून ऐकली. त्याच खूप खाण वगैरे याचे विशेष आश्चर्य वाटत नसे , कारण माझी स्वतःची भूक पण वाढतच होती पण तो माणूस खायचा या गोष्टीकड आईसकट आम्ही सगळे दुर्लक्ष करायचो. 

पण नंतरच्या वर्षात केंव्हा तरी ते आत जाणवल आणि भीती वाटली.

अरुण कोलटकरांची वरची कविता पहा : जातिवंत खवैय्यांचे खास आवडते नरमांस आणि वानरमांस लंका-विजयाच्या पार्टीत नव्हते, आज जसे बऱ्याच मेन्यूनमध्ये गोमांस आणि वराहमांस नसते तसे. 

फिलिप फेर्नांडेज-अर्मेस्टो (Felipe Fernandez-Armesto) लिहतात:
"... Cannibalism existed. The reality of cannibalism as a social practice is not in any genuine doubt. To judge from archaeological evidence, moreover, it has been extremely widespread: human bones snapped for marrow seem to lie under the stones of every civilization. And as the tally of observed cases grew, the assumption that cannibalism was an inherently aberrant activity, abnormal or unnatural, became ever harder to sustain...."
('Near a Thousand Tables: A History of Food', 2001) 

तेंव्हा काव्यातील बकासुर माणूस खायचा पण अनार्यांच्या नरमास भक्षणाबद्दल आर्यांनी केलेल्या लिखाणाबाबत नेहमीच  शंका व्यक्त केली पाहिजे. 

"In the late Middle Ages and, with diminishing force, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, it was an extremely useful attribute to ascribe to one's enemies; for cannibalism, like buggery and blasphemy, was classed as an offense against natural law. Those who committed it put themselves beyond the law's protection. With impunity, Europeans could attack them, enslave them, forcibly subject them and sequester property from them." (ibid)

आणि स्वतः युरोपियन लोक काय करत होती?
"...But, as Schutt points out, we are discriminating about what we call cannibalism. Historical claims about savages eating one another are sometimes wildly hyperbolic, or lacking in proof, Schutt finds. Accusations are often undergirded by racism and opportunism. When Spain was exploring and exploiting the Caribbean during the 1500s, a 1510 papal decree that Christians were morally justified in punishing cannibals meant that on “islands where no cannibalism had been reported previously, man-eating was suddenly determined to be a popular practice.” Yet Renaissance-era Europeans who would have been disgusted by reports of people-eating rituals in faraway places nonetheless practiced what Schutt called medicinal cannibalism. “Upper-class types and even members of the British Royalty ‘applied, drank or wore’ concoctions prepared from human body parts,” Schutt writes. And blood was consumed to treat epilepsy:
So popular was this practice that public executions routinely found epileptics standing close by, cup in hand, ready to quaff their share of the red stuff...."
(Libby Copeland, review of Bill Schutt, 'Eat Me: A Natural and Unnatural History of Cannibalism', 2017)

मला जस बकासुराच खाण समजायला लागल तसा हा प्रश्न पडायला लागला की तो माणूस कसा खायचा कसा? कच्चा ? भाजून-शिजवून?


                                                            Italian engraving, 1781




कलाकार: देवदत्त पटनाईक, दीपक सुतार, 'Jaya: An Illustrated Retelling of the Mahabharata', 2010