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

Tuesday, October 21, 2025

तिसरी चपाती खाण्याचे आपण का टाळू नये ! ...Saving Forex By Not Eating Third Chapati

W. H. Auden, 'Good-Bye To The Mezzogiorno', 1958:
 
"...though one cannot always

Remember exactly why one has been happy,
There is no forgetting that one was."

नुकतेच संपलेले, १९६५ साल हे, १९६२ साला नंतरच्या लगेचच झालेल्या युद्धामुळे, अतिशय खडतर होते ... 

सोबत 'दीपावली' च्या जानेवारी १९६६ च्या अंकातील सरकारी जाहिरात पहा, जी सांगत आहे शक्यतो तिसरी चपाती खाऊ नका! .. आणि ते सांगायला किती  कोलांट्या उड्या पहा "तिसरी चपाती खाण्याचे आपण का टाळू नये ! "!
 
ही भारताची, आमच्या बालपणाची अवस्था होती.... 
 
१९६० दशक: युद्धे, अन्नधान्य टंचाई
 
१९७० दशक: युद्ध, प्रचंड दुष्काळ , अन्नधान्य टंचाई , पेट्रोल चा भडका ,जीवघेणी महागाई , बेकारी 
 
ह्या दोन दशकात आम्हा  कनिष्ठ मध्यमवर्गीय लोकांची पूर्ण वाट लागली  , लक्षात ठेवा जाहिरात दीपावली सारख्या किंचित महाग अंकात आहे ... १९८० दशकाच्या सुरवातीला आम्हाला जेमतेम पैसे पुरत होते ... कित्येक नातेवाईक आणि मित्रांची कुटुंबे आणखी वाईट अवस्थेत होती...
 
१९८० दशक: अनेक राज्यातील आतंकवाद, औधोगिक अशांतता, बेकारी .... 
 
अशी माझ्या आयुष्यातील तीन  दशके गेली ... 

Saturday, October 18, 2025

टिळकांचा जॉन स्टुअर्ट मिल्ल बद्दलचा २०व्या शतकाच्या सुरवातीचा द्रष्टेपणा उठून दिसतो...J S Mill and B G Tilak

गोपाळ गणेश आगरकर, जून १८९३ : 
 
"...जॉन  स्टुअर्ट मिलसाहेब, पुढील जन्मीही तुमच्या पायाशी बसून शिकता आले तर मला अतिशय समाधान लाभेल. जर आपणास माझे सर्वात प्रिय व आदरणीय गुरु होणे शक्य झाले आणि मलाही आपला सर्वात नम्र आणि अज्ञात शिष्य होणे जमले तरच हे सुख मला लाभेल..."

('आगरकर', य  दि फडके, १९९६)
 
आगरकर आणि लोकमान्य टिळकांचे मतभेद व्हायला  जॉन  स्टुअर्ट मिल्ल यांचे विचार पण कारणीभूत होते  का ?
 
फडक्यांच्या पुस्तकात  १८८५ रोजी टिळक आणि आगरकरांचे , न्यायमूर्ती रानड्यांच्या विरोधात, मिल्ल बाबत  एकमत दिसते (पृष्ठ ६६) पण नंतर टिळक बदलेले असावेत. आणि आज वाचताना टिळकांची मते मला अत्यंत योग्य वाटतात. 
 
सोबत टिळकांच्या १० सप्टेंबर १९०७ च्या ''मिल्लआणि मोर्ले" ह्या लेखातील दोन पाने देत आहे 
 

 


('लोकमान्य टिळक लेखसंग्रह', संपादक तर्कतीर्थ लक्ष्मणशास्त्री जोशी. १९६९-२०१३, पृष्ठ १७३, १७४)
 
टिळकांनी मिल्ल चा समाचार सुद्धा काही प्रमाणात घेतला आहे... 
 
इंग्लिश मध्ये मिल्ल  यांच्या विचाराचा Deepseek च्या मदतीने केलेला गोषवारा देतो   ... 

Mill's Justification of Empire

Mill justified empire primarily on utilitarian grounds, arguing that it could bring about greater overall happiness and progress. His reasoning can be summarized as follows:

  1. The Civilizing Mission:
    Mill believed that more "advanced" societies (primarily European) had a duty to govern and "civilize" less developed nations. He argued that societies in what he called "barbarous" or "savage" states were not capable of self-government and needed the guidance of more enlightened rulers to achieve progress. This was a common justification for colonialism during the 19th century.

  2. Temporary Rule for Progress:
    Mill saw imperial rule as a temporary measure, not a permanent condition. He believed that once the colonized peoples had been educated and "civilized," they would eventually be capable of self-governance. This idea was rooted in his belief in progress and the potential for human improvement.

  3. Utilitarian Benefits:
    From a utilitarian perspective, Mill argued that empire could bring about greater overall happiness by spreading civilization, education, and economic development. He believed that the benefits to the colonized populations (e.g., improved infrastructure, education, and governance) outweighed the costs of losing their independence.

  4. Economic and Strategic Interests:
    Mill also acknowledged the economic and strategic benefits of empire for the colonizing nations. As an employee of the British East India Company for much of his career, he was intimately familiar with the economic advantages of colonial rule. He saw empire as a way to secure resources, trade, and geopolitical influence.

    टिळक म्हणतात हे ब्रिटन भारत संबंधांना लागू नाही - मुळातून वर उद्धृत केलेले टिळक वाचा -  त्यामुळे ब्रिटन ला राज्य करायचा अधिकार नाही ... 

    Amitav Ghosh writes about J. S. Mill in his book 'Wild Fictions : Essays', 2025:

    "...In the last chapter of Provincializing Europe , you quote A.K. Ramanujan on
    how his father reconciled two apparently irreconcilable ideas. To my mind, the
    questions that are implied there are more appropriately addressed to Mill, who
    saw no conflict between his hobby of theorizing about liberty and his day job as
    the overseer of the Indian Empire. It was really he and others of his ilk who managed
    to believe two completely divergent things at the same time..." 

    टिळकांचा जॉन  स्टुअर्ट मिल्ल बद्दलचा २०व्या शतकाच्या सुरवातीचा द्रष्टेपणा उठून दिसतो...

Monday, October 13, 2025

Joseph L Mankiewicz's All About Eve@75...Entertainment, Egos and Erection

Sam Staggs writes in his book  'All About All About Eve: The Complete Behind-The-Scenes Story of the Bitchiest Film Ever Made!', 2000:

 

"...Celeste Holm, in her apartment on Central Park West, answered the phone herself. After hearing a description of the book in progress, titled All About All About Eve, she asked, “Why the hell do you want to write that book?”

“Why? Because millions of people love the movie. And also because no one has told the story of how it came about and why All About Eve is considered both a Hollywood classic and a cult film.”

“I don’t get it,” she snapped. “A work of art speaks for itself! I think a book like that is a waste of time. If people are interested, let them see the movie.”

“I’ve seen it thirty times.”

“Then see it thirty more!”

“Look, Miss Holm, it’s not backstairs gossip I’m after. But since Mankiewicz lost all his papers in the fire—”

“I guess you want to talk to me about Bette Davis?” Celeste Holm demanded, and without waiting for an answer she continued. “I’ve talked to everybody in the world about that movie!”

“Bette Davis? No. I’d rather hear about you.”

“All this crap about books—I don’t get it.”

“Suppose I send you a detailed letter about the book. Your memories of shooting All About Eve are important.”

“Well … maybe. I don’t know. Good-bye.”

She never answered the letter...."

 

courtesy: Alejandro Mogollo Art

from left: Anne Baxter, Bette Davis, Thelma Ritter

So much acting talent, doing substantive roles, has seldom come together before and after on silver screen.

Robert Gore-Langton writes in the Spectator, UK on January 26 2019:

"...In 1950, Bette Davis had a string of recent flops behind her. She was 41, married to an embarrassing twerp (her third husband), and her career was spiralling above the plughole. She only got the lead part in All About Eve when Claudette Colbert — who was all signed up — ruptured a disc while doing a rape scene on another film. The story goes that with Colbert shrieking in traction, the producer Darryl Zanuck, who hadn’t spoken to Davis since using the words ‘You’ll never work in this town again’, was obliged to offer her the part. It didn’t take much. No sane actress could resist Joseph L. Mankiewicz’s fabulous script with its sophisticated wit and refreshing cynicism. Davis literally kissed the script and leapt at the part of the Broadway diva Margo Channing. It did her libido a power of good. She had a thing about men with hairy backs and immediately had an affair with her on-screen partner, the hirsute Gary Merrill, who later said he spent three days walking around the set trying to hide a permanent erection...."