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."

Sunday, October 04, 2020

जॉन ग्रे यांची सात प्रकारची नास्तिकता आणि म वा धोंड....Faiths of Tukaram, M V Dhond and John Grey

 "... मी नास्तिक आहे- संदेहवाद्यांसारखा अर्धवट नास्तिक नव्हे, तर संपूर्ण- तरीही मी अश्रद्ध नाही. माझी विठ्ठलावर आणि वारकरी संतांवर अपार श्रद्धा आहे... तुकाराममहाराजही माझ्यासारखेच नास्तिक होते..." 

(पृष्ठ १००, 'ऐसा विटेवर देव कोठें!', २००१)

हे संपूर्ण वाक्य गोंधळात टाकणारे आहे. 

नास्तिक पण विठ्ठलावर श्रद्धा , मग नास्तिक कसे? आणि तुकाराममहाराजांना ह्या गोंधळात ते का ओढत आहेत: माझ्यासारखेच नास्तिक होते" म्हणत?   

हा सगळा पुरोगामी डोक्यांमधला गोंधळ आहे.

ते पाहून मी ठरवले हे जरा जॉन ग्रे ह्यांच्या गाजलेल्या "Seven Types of Atheism", 2018 ह्या पुस्तकात तपासून पाहू. 

ग्रे त्यांच्या ७ प्रकारच्या नास्तिकता खालील शब्दात वर्णन करतात :

"... The first of them – the so-called ‘new atheism’ – contains little that is novel or interesting. After the first chapter, I will not refer to it again. The second type is secular humanism, a hollowed-out version of the Christian belief in salvation in history. Third, there is the kind of atheism that makes a religion from science, a category that includes evolutionary humanism, Mesmerism, dialectical materialism and contemporary transhumanism. Fourth, there are modern political religions, from Jacobinism through communism and Nazism to contemporary evangelical liberalism. Fifth, there is the atheism of God-haters such as the Marquis de Sade, Dostoevsky’s fictional character Ivan Karamazov and William Empson himself. Sixth, I will consider the atheisms of George Santayana and Joseph Conrad, which reject the idea of a creator-god without having any piety towards ‘humanity’. Seventh and last, there are the mystical atheism of Arthur Schopenhauer and the negative theologies of Benedict Spinoza and the early twentieth-century Russian-Jewish fideist Leo Shestov, all of which in different ways point to a God that transcends any human conception...."

आता सहावी आणि सातवी नास्तिकता पहा. भारतातले आपण जवळजवळ सर्वच जण त्यातील एकातरी प्रकारात बसतो. "reject the idea of a creator-god without having any piety towards ‘humanity’.किंवा 'all of which in different ways point to a God that transcends any human conception'. 

 पण सध्या भारतातील 'पुरोगाम्यां'मधेएक ते पाच ह्या प्रकारातील नास्तिकता पसरली आहे. कळत, न कळत ती नास्तिकता म्हणजे खरी नास्तिकता असा प्रचार केला जातो. 

भारतात त्याचा प्रसार एकोणिसाव्या शतकात जॉन स्टुअर्ट मिल यांच्या पुस्तकांपासून सुरु झाला. 

"... Generations of atheists have lived in expectation of the arrival of a truly human species: the communal workers of Marx, Mill’s autonomous individuals and Nietzsche’s absurd Übermensch, among many others. None of these fantastical creatures has been seen by human eyes. A truly human species remains as elusive as any Deity. Humanity is the deus absconditus of modern atheism.

A free-thinking atheism would begin by questioning the prevailing faith in humanity. But there is little prospect of contemporary atheists giving up their reverence for this phantom. Without the faith that they stand at the head of an advancing species they could hardly go on. Only by immersing themselves in such nonsense can they make sense of their lives. Without it, they face panic and despair.

According to the grandiose theories today’s atheists have inherited from Positivism, religion will wither away as science continues its advance. But while science is advancing more quickly than it has ever done, religion is thriving – at times violently. Secular believers say this is a blip – eventually, religion will decline and die away. But their angry bafflement at the re-emergence of traditional faiths shows they do not believe in their theories themselves. For them religion is as inexplicable as original sin. Atheists who demonize religion face a problem of evil as insoluble as that which faces Christianity.

If you want to understand atheism and religion, you must forget the popular notion that they are opposites....

... Contemporary atheism is a continuation of monotheism by other means. Hence the unending succession of God-surrogates, such as humanity and science, technology and the all-too-human visions of transhumanism. But there is no need for panic or despair. Belief and unbelief are poses the mind adopts in the face of an unimaginable reality. A godless world is as mysterious as one suffused with divinity, and the difference between the two may be less than you think."


कृतज्ञता : दोन्ही पुस्तकांचे मुखपृष्ठकार आणि प्रकाशक आणि लेखक किंवा त्यांचे कॉपीराईट होल्डर्स