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."

Thursday, January 19, 2017

कंबरेच्यावर कोणतेही वस्त्र अंगावर असता कामा नये...Chin Vi Joshi चिं वि जोशी @125

Today January 19 2017 is 125th birth anniversary of Chi Vi Joshi (चिं वि जोशी)


Business Standard reported on December 8 2016: "The Kerala High Court on Thursday banned women from to wearing salwar kameez and churidars inside the Sri Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Thiruvananthapuram.

According to the traditions of the temple, women devotees have to wear a mundu (dhoti) over their waist if they are attired in salwars or churidars.
"Only those women, clad in saris would be allowed inside the temple," said the court.
Earlier on November 30, 2016, temple executive officer K.N Satheesh had allowed women to visit the temple wearing 'churidar'..."

Earlier Loksatta (लोकसत्ता) reported on April 15 2016: "...अखेर देवस्थानने न्यायालयाच्या निर्णयाचा मान ठेवत पुरूषांप्रमाणे महिलांना सकाळी सहा ते सात या कालावधीत गर्भगृहात प्रवेश देण्यास मान्यता दिली. गर्भगृहात प्रवेश करताना ओले सुती, रेशमी वस्त्र परिधान करणे आवश्यक राहणार असल्याचे सांगण्यात आले..."


Reading about these repeatedly visited dress codes, I was amused and remembered something 'naughty' from the late Mr. Joshi's travelogue.
While describing his visit to Padmanabhaswamy Temple at Thiruvananthapuram in his book 'Sanchar' (संचार), 1945/1999, Joshi says:

"...दरवाज्यातून आत शिरताच तेथील परिचारकांनी आम्हांस अंगावरील पंचे कंबरेभोवती गुंडाळण्याची सूचना केली. कंबरेच्यावर कोणतेही वस्त्र पुरुषाच्या अंगावर असता कामा नये असा त्रावणकोरी देवस्थानाचा कायदा आहे..."

(Once we entered through the door, we were asked by the male attendants to wrap our waists with the towels that were till then wrapped around our body. 'The men should wear no cloth above their waist' is an edict of the Tranvankore Devasthan .)

But the punch comes in the next statement...

"पंचवीस वर्षांपूर्वी स्त्रियांनादेखील हा दंडक होता असे म्हणतात  !" (Twenty five years ago apparently the same edict was also applicable to the women !)

Will she be allowed in the temple?
Artist: Dinanath Dalal (दीनानाथ दलाल)

(Just look on the extreme left on the road, Rajiv Dole राजीव डोळे helped with it)
On this blog, I wrote on September 16 2009: 

"...R K Narayan almost certainly never read or met C V Joshi. Or did he? I find a lot of similarity between their humour.

Narayan's first novel, Swami and Friends, was published in 1935. By then, C V Joshi's main character- Chimanrao- was well established in Marathi. 

But unlike R K Narayan, C V Joshi shuns sex completely.

An example: Bheema's husband, in 'Rahat-gaadagan' ('रहाट-गाडगं') 1955, performs roles of female characters in a theatre company. A lot of people, including his close family, make fun of him for that. Bheema herself doesn't like it. She might be even suspicious of his virility, particularly because her family was cheated to marry her off.

And yet Joshi completely omits any reference to consummation of their marriage and makes Bheema pregnant in due course!..."

But by making a statement as quoted above: "Twenty five years ago apparently the same edict was also applicable to the women !", he shows what we might have missed.



One of them will certainly be allowed in the temple

 Apsaras, Mural, Sigiriya, c. 5th century. Sri Lanka
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)