The waste land by T S Eliot

This was my facebook post i had posted in sem 3

★ Characters of THE WASTE LAND BY T. S. ELIOT:-

The Cumaean Sibyl :- appears in the epigram at the head of the poem. A guest at a Roman feast in the satirical novel by Petronius, c. 27–66 a.d., The Satyricon, relates her story. Granted eternal life by Apollo, she neglected to ask also for eternal youth and lived a life in death, continually withering but never dying.

★ Ezra Pound :- American poet, author of The Cantos, edited The Waste Land, cutting it in half and giving it the shape and texture that define it as the ground-breaking work it is. In recognition of his craftsmanship, Eliot dedicated the poet to him, using the Italian inscription translated as “the better craftsman.”

☆ the poet narrator :- recites the poem, assuming many voices. In his own voice, he seems to be an intellectual and ineffectual man, tormented by a sense that history has run down, civilization has decayed and that culture, while comforting to his lonely soul, describes the failures and torments of mankind but cannot bring salvation.

☆★ Marie :- is the poet’s first interlocutor. She tells him over coffee of her past in Austria and of her cousin, who was the Archduke Rudolph, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne and how she used to go sledding in the mountains.

★ Isolde, the heroine of Richard Wagner’s opera Tristan und Isolde, is referred to in the quotation from the opera beginning at line 31. She falls desperately in love with Tristan, who had been sent by his king, Mark, to bring her back to him as a bride. Tristan falls in love with her, too, after they drink a love potion.

★ Madame Sosostris is a clairvoyant and tarot card reader, a fortune teller. As she turns over the cards in her deck, she introduces several of the characters present in the poem through allusion:

★★ the drowned Phoenician sailor :- refers to Phlebas the Phoenician, whose death is the subject of the “Death by Water” section of the poem.

★ the man with three staves, Eliot states in his notes, he associates with the Fisher King, the impotent ruler of the waste land, and the prevailing spirit of The Waste Land.

★★ the one-eyed merchant is a figure that may be associated with Mr. Eugenides, the Smyrna merchant in the third section of the poem who propositions the narrator.

★★the Hanged Man, Eliot says, he associates with the dying god and with the hooded figure in the last section of the poem, that is with Jesus as he was after his resurrection, when he appeared to some of his disciples on their way to Emmaus.

★★Stetson is a figure the narrator encounters on London Bridge, representing survivors of war.

★★“She” is the way Eliot identifies the wealthy and nervous woman in the richly appointed salon that begins the second section of the poem.

★★Cleopatra, the hot-tempered and volatile Egyptian queen, as she is portrayed in Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra, is present by allusion as a precursor spirit to the woman Eliot refers to as “she,” because her chair is compared to Cleopatra’s barge on the Nile.

★★tereus and Philomela are pictured over the mantelpiece. In the Metamorphoses, Ovid tells the story of how Tereus raped his wife’s sister, Philomela, and how he was changed into a hawk and she into a swallow.

Gossip in a dive is an unidentified cockney women who tells the story of:

★★lil, a woman who has had five children and an abortion and is old beyond her years. She would like to break off sexual relations with her husband.

★★lil’s husband is returning from the army and, according to the Gossip, will be looking for “a good time” with another woman if his wife is unavailable.

barman calls out that the bar is closing as the Gossip tells her tale.

★★Ophelia is the young woman used by her father and spurned by Hamlet in Shakespeare’s play, who dies by drowning. In the poem, the goodnights the bar patrons exchange segue into her last words in Hamlet. Mrs. Porter is the keeper of a brothel in a bawdy song from which Eliot quotes.

Her daughter is one of her prostitutes.

★★Sweeney, one of her clients, is a recurring figure in Eliot’s poetry and represents a rather degenerate example of the human species, governed by lust and greed.

★Mr. eugenides is the merchant referred to by Madame Sosostris. He propositions the narrator.

★★★
☆☆Tiresias, to whom the poet compares himself and who, Eliot explains is his notes, represents the point at which all the characters in the poem converge, is a character from Ovid’s Metamorphoses who existed serially as both male and female. In his final embodiment as a male he was blind but had the power of prophecy.

★the typist lives in a small bed-sitter.

★the Clerk is a vain young man who visits her.

★★the rhine Maidens, the spirits of the Rhine River from Richard Wagner’s Ring Cycle, are parodied as thames Maidens, the spirit of the Thames.

★ Queen elizabeth i and her favorite, leicester, are imagined on the Thames, contrasting the opulence of the Renaissance with the industrial waste of Eliot’s time.

★★Saint Augustine, an early Church Father, is alluded to in the line referring to Carthage. Augustine wrote The Confessions in which he tells of his conversion from a dissolute youth to a life of religious asceticism.

★★ the buddha’s sermon in which he spoke of everything being on fire is referred to in the repetition of the word “burning.”

☆☆ roman soldiers are suggested by the allusion to “torchlight red on sweaty faces” in the final section of the poem, which presents the capture, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus in a series of images and allusions.

★★ the thunder is personified and made to speak the words of Prajapati, the Hindu God of creation.

★
the Prince of Aquitaine is a character in a poem by Gerard de Nerval, an early nineteenth-century French poet whom Eliot quotes. The prince, like the poet/narrator, laments the fallen glory of his condition by using the image of a fallen tower.

★★★★★
Hieronymo is a character in the Elizabethan revenge tragedy,

the Spanish tragedy, by Thomas Kyd. Eliot’s allusion suggests the vicissitudes of his own emotional condition when caught between the despair engendered in him by the waste land around him and within himself, and the as-yet-unrealizable possibility of salvation.

four point perspective on the rewards of reading literature

Respected sir,

 I have read whole article as well as also seen the video. The points discussed here are seems appropriate, because under the four main advantages of reading literature writer has cover most of possible advantages of reading literature. So it may possible that what I am writing as a my experience of advantage of reading literature that (may) already discussed in this article.

Sir, earlier once in our class we had discussed about the attack of terrorist on World Trade Centre, America. At that time you have told that all the terrorist were highly intellectual people, not common men. Every one cannot do that multitasking at same time which they were able to do.  So the question arise that why this sort of highly intellectual people agree to do such kind of disaster?. Then the research was done and it was proved that their brainwash was done.  And when their biographies were studied at that time it comes to know that they had not study literature in their life. So they have no sensitivity, feelings, humanity, love, affection which literature gives.  In research it was also proved that in comparison of students of literature, students of engineering, medical(doctors) are less sensitive. Why??? This is the result of literature. Literature makes us better human being. Rather than being self centered literature makes us world oriented. It gives vision to understand the outside world in better way. Reading of literature has many advantages like it gives aesthetic delight, information and knowledge. We cannot go in past(100 years back) but it through reading we can know about that. It gives better understanding of human nature

Thank you.   

Love jehad: Gunvant Shah

Respected sir,

Thank you for sharing article about Love Jehad and with reference of Gunvant Shah’s interesting article.

First the words love and jehad are seems controversial. Because love is something precious and beautiful gifnt to us. But then even religion and politics have spoiled this. People are playing with others emotions for the sake of religion and politics.

                Hindu girl marry a muslim boy that is generally called love jehad. But it is not so. In the news    paper I read that Muslim boys are marrying Hindu girl, then they force her to accept the islam. And if they(girl) deny to do so then they abandon the girls. This is the love jehad. Marrying a muslim is not a problem but if they are using this marriage for the spreading of the islam religion then it is wrong. Why pious love is used for this sort of bad things?

Women are not free in our society.  They are suppressed under power of patriarchy. We are living in the era of 21^st century but still our thinking process, our behavior with women is very cruel like of hundred years back. Why it is so? We are calling ourselves civilized, but is it so?.

We should learn from the western country like England and America that how they are behaving with the women. There male and female considers as equal. So we should go into that directions rather than love jehad and all this things.

East versus West

Respected sir, thank you very much for bringing into discussion very interesting issue about the east and west.

it is perhaps ridiculous to generalise that east is spiritual and west is materialistic. because  now a days we are also running behind the material thing, wealth. whereas people of west are also starts YOGA, for mental peace. this shows that there is worth in our values. at the same time we should not denied  the useful ness of material thing. whether we are living in east or west it is the fact that we are living in big houses, uses all the luxurious of life, all have ambition to reach higher than they are, all want betterment in their life, . so this is the common human desire. so we cannot  set limit that only west is materialistic and we are spiritualist. west is more advance in science and technology  than us, they have invented many things  which are even used by us.

if we look from the traditional perspectives then we can say that east is traditional, religious and devotional. we are proud on what we were, but the tragedy is that people are now calling that Indians are highly hypocritic people. we are living in day-dreams, illusions than in reality because even we are not following our tradition sincerely. rather we go on telling other that our culture is this and that but if we try to implement this things in our life then no one does so .for example we are proud that our forefathers were wearing dhoti, we can take pride on that but how many of us will ready  to accept to wear dhoti from now onwards than pant shirt??.how many of us will prefer  to live life of hermit if we are truly spiritualist??how many of us wants to live in hut than in big bungalows??? the results will be zero. then the question arises that if we are religious and spiritualist then why we are running behind all this material thing??.this shows our vanity , hypocrisy.

and it at one extent also right that west is adventurist, scientific and materialistic one. if we read the history then we can find that most of the adventurous work were done by them. they  have done sea voyages and found new lands. I have never heard that any Indians have explored the sea and found the new lands.  even if we check the list of new inventions then we will see them at the top. our contribution is very less.

they are far ahead than us in all the ways .they put  human being at the centre than god. they have freedom of thinking, of religion, of expression etc .but  still we are not able to free ourself from that. we are spiritual, religious people then even in our country there is corruption, poverty, unequality, and many vices in our. how paradox!!!!!!!!!

my point is that no one is perfect. all have something good and bad. and we should not generalise any thing because even two brothers are not equal, all fingers of our hand is not of same length. similarly whole east and west cannot be totally same. even west is also religious, spiritual and we are also materialistic.

it is a time of globalization .all are merging into each other and world is becoming now a global village.so east and west are same in most ways. 

Prime Minister's speech

Respected sir,

Thank you very much for sharing the speech of President and P.M. of India. Truly their speech is really appealing to us. In his speech I like the most is their appeal to the teacher about their proficiency in using the ICT.  If teachers were not knowing how to use all this things properly then how can they will teach to the students. Students are the future of India, and the future of any country will depend on science and technology. So if student will learn from childhood then even they will become perfect for the upcoming time and for that teacher’s proficiency is necessary.

Second important thing is that children are innocent. They don’t know anything. They imitate teachers, so teacher’s behavior should be ideal for them. Everyday student spent 5 hours in the school, so teacher should be well behaved.

    Now a days all wants to become engineer and doctor but there are very  who   few who wants to become teacher. So one must think about being an efficient teacher. And also think that we can export good teachers. Not only scientists and doctors but teachers also.

A teacher must be good student. Means he should continue his learning throughout his life. New knowledge comes everyday. So age doesn’t matter one should continue new learning.

Thus this and many other thought in this speech I like most. Really one should try to implement this in life. It was best for the occasion –The Teacher’s Day. Dr. Radhakrishnan was great teacher and one must remember and learn values from him.

Thank you 

importance of English (UPSC controversy)

Respected sir,

Thank you very much for this wonderful article and debate.

§  About  UPSC

First of all we should  think that why students of the Northern States  are against the English language.

v Students of northern states protesting it because they think that , student of English medium get more advantage in the exam.

v Hindi is official (National)language of india. so they think that we should prefer hindi rather than English and they also believe that without the use of English they can do well.

Now lets discuss this point from another perspectives

Is it possible now a days to live without knowledge of English language at the IPS and IAS level?

Importance of English language.

·       English as a library language.

·       English as a link language.

·       English as an international language.

·       Inter state language.

·       English is a WINDOW to see the WORLD.

·       Useful medium for widened our senses and knowledge.

·       English is a spectacle for observe the bounderyless,limitless world,which is out side of india.                         (and more……)

English language is really a gift to us. we should not look at this with the mark of slavery. and we also should not forget that it is the language which help us in getting freedom. our freedom fighter get inspiration of freedom from the English books and the contemporary movement which was happening at that time in the world.

    Few days ago I met my B.A. friends. They are also in our university, in Psychology and Sociology Department.  They told me that right now they are facing big problem. The reason is that at the P.G. and further  level most of their reference books are in English. And they have not sufficient knowledge of English. this shows that how important English language is in whatever field you are.

    Last Friday a merchant was came to my village  to sell garments. He was from west Bengal. And he was able to talk only in Bengali and English.  Definitely we wont understand Bengali, so only bridge was of English language.(but the tragedy was that except 2-3 people no one was able to understand in English even. So great misunderstanding and confusion was created.)

This are the very common incidents, but it shows that how English became necessary and important at very common stage of our life.

My point is that if common people cannot live without use of English then how can a person of IPS and IAS  level could be?

And why those people who are protesting  English they are not able to realize its usefulness?

For this incident I would like to quote a SLOCK ofBHARTUHARI from his great work ’NITISHATAKAM’’-agyani (fool) ne saralta thi samajavi shakay, vishesh gyani(scholar) ne vadhare saralta thi samjavi shakay, pan ocha gyan (knowledge) thi potane shreshtha (true,best) mannaar ne brahma pan rijvi,prasanna kari shakta nathi.(samjavi shakta nathi)

In this UPSC case thing is something like this…..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.......

Ancient and Modern writer 2 debate

Ancient and Modern

It is foolish idea to compare two distinct things and derive conclusion from them, that who is better. Comparison is okay but what is the need to prove one as superior and other inferior?

the same debate is also there in the Battle of the Books by Jonathan Swift, in which books discuss who is better Ancient or Modern?.

In that books Ancients are compared with Honeybees  and moderns are compared with Spiders. Ancients gathers so many material (honey) from here and there, and Moderns use them like Spiders. Eating the fruits of work done by Ancients without hard work. Moderns are lucky that they have raw material, model how to write. Ancients had done lot of works and moderns are just  copying or imitating them.

From Modern point of view , we can criticize Ancient that- As said by T.S.ELIOT in Tradition and Individual Talent, while discussing Historical sense-  that influence of past ruins the new talent. under the influence of great writer it  becomes difficult for Individual to write.

As well as we can defend modern that, they are not  copying Ancients but adding much more in that. New plot structures, experimentive narrative technique, Psychological portrayal of character, fusion of various arts into literature etc. are gift of Modern writers.

so to think of mutual existence of both is a better idea. it is our conditioning of mind since childhood to compare and contrast two things, whether possible or not.

Generalizing anything is major problem. there are plenty of Ancient writers. how can one say that they were good or bad- how can you generalize?? some of them may be artist with great literary abilities , some may not!!!!!! so judge individual by reading them, whether Ancient or Modern. similarly all Ancients are Great Classics and all Modern are rubbish, childish , it is not so.

so even John Dryden, in his essay Of Dramatic Poesy- through characters of Crites, Lesidius, Eugenius, Neander does not give any  conclusion, but gives voice to both.

both are interdependent, like two sides of a coin.

Discussion of Ancient and Modern should not be for who is better, it should be more filename tally about how "history" itself functioned and should be read, thus it should be about the relationship between past and present, humanity and nature, and human understanding and knowledge.↓↓

This is also fact that contemporary society fails to understand/ judge writers. they became great classic only after their death. for exampleThomas Hardy- his novels were banned when he was alive. priests have burn his book ( Tess of D'Urbervilles-a pure woman) and drank ashes in coffee. and now he is classic writer.

Even during Elizabethan era Shakespeare was also writing for masses. he was popular not classic. Ben Jonson was holding important place  at that time, writing for Queen. ( Royal family). but today Ben Jonson is almost lost. so time will judge artist. contemporary audience may be wrong.

Even Chetan Bhagat is popular modern writer. but being popular, best seller don’t make him good writer. upcoming time will judge him. Today's Modern are Ancients of tomorrow.

So we have to think about the mutual coexistence of both.

Reading Myth

Respected sir,

Myth plays an essential part in any culture therefore, it is century old debates that weather the myths are true stories or not. Like any other issue we also find here people believing in both the ways.

Whatever Aristotle and Plato had said about mythology that was according to their time and culture. But if we analyze the   question that whether myths are only imaginary story or has any reality from the Indian point of view then mostly we find that all this stories are true. For example  our great epics  RAMAYAN    and   MAHABHARATA ,because still  after this many years we have available  so many places  which are connected  with  lord  RAMA   and    Krishna. for  example  ‘RAMSETU” .and if this stories  are imaginary  than  it  shouldn't   have any  connection in real  life  but  it  is  not  so. Those  places  which  are  described  in  this  epics  are  still  existing  in  the  21^st  century  like   DWARIKA   in  Gujarat,  the battle field of  KURUKSHETRA   in  Haryana, a  place  (village)   where  sri  Krishna  was married with Rukmini    is still existing   in MAHUVA   TALUKA  ,which  was  shown  on  TV 9   news  few  months   ago. a place  where sri   Krishna  breath  his  last (PRABHASPATAN) is also existing  in  Gujarat. This and many other like this shows that it is not only imaginary story.

But now  the  question  arise  that  if all this  stories  are  fact/truth  does  it becomes  history?

We shouldn't  forgot  that this great epics were remain  greatest source for the most  of  the  authors and  they  have chosen their  material  from this and made  necessary  changes according to  their  needs.  And we also not  forgot  that RAM  is  one  and  the  RAMAYAN   is  also  one  but  in every state of India  they have  their  own  RAMAYAN.

This suggests that truth is truth but it is writer’s imagination, creativity which creates god’s image in our mind.and perhaps this is the reason that PLATO was not agree in beleiving that myths are true story.at some extent he is right.

Reading Adi parva, Mahabharata

Dilip Barad Sir, (Shared this article with us)

(This is written by Sumanta Banerjee is a cultural historian who specialises in research into popular culture, particularly of the colonial period. He is the author of many books, including The Parlour and the Streets: Elite and Popular Culture in Nineteenth Century Calcutta.)

·       See, how the original epics, myths and cultural stories are reinterpreted in recent times. The change in the political power, the dominant group’s attempt to legitimize cultural artifacts to appropriate it with their ideologies. The events remain the same but the language to narrate it changes. The language – the words changes our world view.

·       If the story of Aadi Parva, Mahabharata is told in modern day English it may sound very crude and vulgar.

·       It is narration of the event which is very important, wherein the narrator (historian) becomes very important as it is his relation to the event that matters more in his narration. Secondly, the language (words) used in narration becomes equally important.

·       Read the story of Aadi Parva in modern day english, in the context of changed power structure in India.

HOW WOULD YOU REACT TO THIS WRITEUP? Give your response in 100-200 words in reply email.

The Morality Tale That The Mahabharata Just Isn’t

Its epic transgressions surely cannot be the underpinning of the Sangh parivar’s Hindutva

The new chairperson of the Indian Council of Historical Research (appointed by the BJP-led government), Yellapragada Sudershan Rao, has promised to push research projects to rewrite ancient history based on the stories of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. According to him, they are truthful accounts of historical events. But he should be careful when choosing the epics.

The stories of the Mahabharata, for instance, are often at odds with the Hindutva that the BJP government and its parent Sangh parivar preach. Although the votaries of Hindutva worship the epic’s heroes and heroines, the messages that most of the latter impart may not be suitable for the present government’s programme to educate our people in the “moral and cultural values” that they want to uphold in the name of Hindutva. In fact, the deities and mortals described in the eighteen volumes of this hefty tome had never once been designated by the term ‘Hindu’. The Mahabharata may turn out to be a rather uncomfortable quarry for the BJP ministers and Sangh parivar historians to dig up models to suit a Hindu-specific Indian ideal of morality and culture.

The just-replaced health minister Harsh Vardhan (a medical practitioner!) played a major role in this effort to create a behavioural pattern based on a supposedly “Indian moral culture”. In an interview to the New York Times, he is reported to have recommended abstinence from “pre-marital and extra-marital sex” as a better means of avoiding aids instead of using condoms, since such abstinence is “a part of Indian culture”. In yet another effort to reform the sartorial preferences of Indian women, a BJP minister of Goa, Sudhir Davalkar, warned: “Scantily dressed girls (do) not fit in our culture.” Plans are also afoot to revive ‘Indian culture’ by RSS institute Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Samiti which has laid down guidelines for writing history from our puranas, to cleanse the current history textbooks of “corrupt Western cultural influences”.

The Mahabharata’s heroines did not conform to the Hindu ideal of female chastity our ministers want our women to follow.

But these views and norms about sexual practices and female behaviour and attire that these venerable gentlemen are propagating and laying down as the one—and only—‘Indian culture’ sanctified by their Hindu religious tradition were flouted by the heroes and heroines of the Mahabharata itself. Most of the heroines did not set much store by the Hindu ideal of female chastity that our ministers would want our women to follow. Going by the explicit description of the beautiful contours of their bodies (quite visible behind their dress) that we find in the epic, they beat hollow the hip-hugging jeans-clad women that the Sangh parivar’s moral guardians are objecting to. As for the heroes of the Mahabharata, they merrily indulged in pre-marital and extra-marital relationships. And let us not forget that they and their children, who were born out of wedlock, were elevated to positions of superheroes.

Birth of the ancestors of Kurus and Pandavas: Without pre-marital and extra-marital sex, which Dr Harsh Vardhan and his party leaders blame as the main cause of our problems, they would not have had their heroes like Veda Vyasa (who wrote the epic), and the sons that he bred through adulterous relationships (Dhritarashtra, Pandu and Vidura), and his grandsons (the five Pandavas). Let us listen for instance to the story of the birth of Veda Vyasa, as described in the Adi Parva of Mahabharata: One day the great sage Parashara, in the course of his pilgrimage, arrived on the shores of the Yamuna river and saw an extraordinarily beautiful woman with a charming smile on her lips, seeing whom he was affected by the excruciating desire of making love to her. The woman happened to be Matsyagandha (her name meaning ‘smelling of fish’, since she was the adopted daughter of a fisherman family), who used to ferry passengers in her boat across the river. When Parashara approached her with his desire, she expressed her inability to immediately satisfy him, drawing his attention to the large number of rishis (sages) waiting on both banks of the river for her to carry them across. Parashara immediately created a fog that immersed the area in darkness—so that the rishis could not see what he planned to do. Although impressed by Par­ashara’s miracle, Matsyagandha pleaded: “But I shall lose my virginity if I satisfy your desire. How can I then go back to my home, and live in society?” Parashara said: “If you satisfy me, I shall give you whatever you pray for...and res­tore your virginity.” Matsyagandha prayed: “Please let my body exude a sweet smell.” Having been granted that req­uest, she agreed to sleep with Parashara—and in due course, gave birth to a son who came to be known as Krishna Dwaipayana (meaning dark-skinned and born on an isl­and). Vyasa left home to be an ascetic, but reassured his mot­her that he would come back to her whenever she needed him.

The chirharan Was putting Draupadi on stakes any lesser sin?

It was through Kshetraja or the practice of producing children through extra-marital recourse that Pandavas were born.

Sometime later, his mother (now known as Satyavati, her body “sweet-scented” and her “virginity restored”—thanks to Parashar’s blessings) got married to a king called Shantanu. Through him, she gave birth to two sons—Chitrangad and Vichitravirya. After Shantanu’s death, Chitrangad was killed in a battle, and Vichitravirya ascended the throne. He married two sisters—Ambika and Ambalika (both daughters of a king). TheAdi Parva describes how Vichitravirya failed to produce any children, even “after spending seven years with the two queens in continuous vihar (amorous frolic), (following which) he fell victim to tuberculosis in his youth,” and died despite sincere efforts by his friends and doctors. The problem started now. How were the two childless queens expected to carry on the dynasty? Their mother-in-law Satyavati first requested her stepson Bhishma (her late husband Shantanu’s son by his first marriage) to impregnate the two young widows. When he refused, she summoned her own first son Vyasa (who had promised to help her whenever she needed his help)—who was willing to solve the problem. But Vyasa, having followed a rather earthy lifestyle in the forests all these years as an ascetic, looked quite hideous and repelling to the two dainty queens. After being persuaded by Satyavati, her eldest daughter-in-law Ambika agreed to welcome Vyasa to her bed. But then seeing his ferocious countenance from close quarters—dark skin, blood-red eyes and matted hair—she closed her eyes in fear. After completing his required role, Vyasa told his mother Satyavati that although a son would be born endowed with superhuman mental and physical powers, he would be born blind—because Ambika had committed the error of closing her eyes during his conception. That was why Ambika gave birth to the blind Dhritarashtra. In order to correct the effects of the error, Satyavati sought another grandchild in the family who would be perfect this time. She recalled her son Vyasa again, to impregnate the second daughter-in-law Ambalika. But Ambalika again, at one glance at Vyasa’s fearful visage, turned pale—and thus gave birth to Pandu (coloured yellow). Disappointed by getting another imperfect (discoloured) grandson, Satyavati summoned her son Vyasa to again impregnate her first daughter-in-law Ambika. This time, however, Ambika subverted Satyavati’s plans. Refusing to suffer the unwelcome “sight and smells” of the jungle-bred Vyasa, Ambika cheated him by dressing up one of her beautiful slave girls in her own ornaments and sending her to him. Unlike the two queens, this woman, who suffered from no scruples, made love to Vyasa with all abandon, and a happy Vyasa blessed her with the words: “You are henceforth free from slavery, and your son will become extraordinarily wise and extremely pious.” Thus was born Vidura, the most perfect and intelligent of all the three brothers (Adi Parva).

Birth of the Pandavas

The legacy of pre-marital sex, and the practice of producing children through the extra-marital recourse (of requesting or appointing another male to impregnate the wife or widow), known as ‘kshetraja’, continued even after the birth (through such means) of the ancestors of the dynasty that Mahabharata celebrates. It was only thanks to the custom of ‘kshetraja’ that all the later Pandava heroes were born—Yudhishthira, Bhima, Arjuna and the other two inconspicuous brothers (Nakula and Sahadeva)—whom the Sangh parivar worships, and its ideologues are at pains to turn into ‘historical characters’. Let us begin with the story of their mother Kunti. The Mahabharata describes how Kunti, the virgin daughter of a king, satisfied the sage Durvasa when he came to their house as a guest, and obtained from him a blessing that allowed her to summon any god who could impregnate her with their power to produce their respective sons. A young and impulsive Kunti, in order to test the veracity of the blessing, summoned the sun god, who immediately appeared and demanded satisfaction of his desire to sleep with her. Through a cunning combination of persuasion, threat and charm, the sun god seduced a reluctant and fearful Kunti, promising to restore her virginity, and then disappeared in the skies. But Kunti found herself left in the lurch, when she gave birth to a son born of the sun god. Scared of facing social ostracism for her impetuous act, Kunti got rid of her first-born by throwing him into a river. Luckily, a family (belonging to the lower caste of charioteers) picked up the son and brought him up, enabling him to emerge as the powerful warrior Karna (Adi Parva).

Swami Nithyananda The ‘obliging’ godmen of the modern era

After having hidden that act of sexual indiscretion, Kunti reappeared on the scene as a princess, ready to choose her husband from among numerous royal candidates, through a custom called swayamvara (which allowed the woman to embrace a spouse of her own choice from an assembly of candidates). Will the present BJP government—which claims to restore the so-called Hindu traditions—dare to re-establish the custom of swayamvara? To come back to Kunti, in the swayamvara assembly, she tied the garland of flowers around the neck of Pandu, thus announcing her choice of him as her husband. They led a happy married life, till one day Pandu, during a hunting spree, interrupted the mating of a pair of deer by shooting at them with his arrows. The deer were actually a human couple. The husband, who was the son of a sage, had decided that day to take on the form of a stag and transform his wife into a deer, to savour the delights of animal sexuality perhaps! Angered by being stopped mid-way in his adventure, the sage’s son cursed Pandu, predicting that he would die if he ever tried to make love to his wife. An anguished Pandu requested Kunti to conceive through other means, in response to which she made use of Parashara’s old blessing—and summoned, one by one, the gods Dharma, Vayu and Indra, sleeping with whom she gave birth respectively to Yudhishthira, Bhima and Arjuna. Requested further by Pandu to help his other wife Madri to conceive, Kunti summoned the twin gods Ashwini Kumars, who impregnated Madri which led to the birth of the other two Pandavas—Nakula and Sahadeva. The above accounts are from the Adi Parva, the first volume of the Mahabharata—which the Sangh parivar ideologues cannot surely dismiss as figments of a Marxist imagination! What follows in the next 17 volumes of this fantastic epic is a cornucopia of romantic stories, secret intrigues and surreptitious love affairs (with which the main narrative of battles and wars are interspersed) that unfold a variety of sexual lifestyles and inter-caste/racial liaisons (which had made possible the birth of Vidura in the past, and the later romance between Bhima and the forest-girl Hidimba, or the marriage of Arjuna with the Manipur princess Chitrangada).

Since RSS ideologues revere Mahabharata’s characters, they should permit the emulation of their liberal lifestyles.

If consenting adults in India today seek to follow a similar pluralistic lifestyle of multifaceted and multi-integrated romantic relationships cutting across caste/racial/religious lines, it invariably invites violent opprobrium from the parivar. In the rural areas, in the name of preserving the purity of the multi-tiered Hindu caste system, its ideology of ‘Indian culture and tradition’ encourages the khap panchayats to lynch any couple daring to follow the example of Bhima and Hidimba, or excommunicate a modern Vidura as ‘illegitimate’! In the urban areas of India, the same ideology encourages a xenophobic, aggressive bias against people from the non-Hindi-speaking northeast—leading to the rape of today’s Chitrangadas of Manipur in the streets of national capital Delhi.

Sangh parivar sants and BJP politicians in the role of gods of the epics: As for the heroes and heroines of Mahabharata, the ideologues of the Sangh parivar may explain away their acts of pre- and extra-marital sex, inter-caste or inter-racial relationships, as blessed and sanctioned by the gods. But since those divine progenitors of the Pandavas—Dharma, Vayu and Indra—have failed to reappear in modern times, the Sangh parivar appears to be creating their human counterparts in the shape of godmen and MPs and mlas. We thus find characters like Asaram Bapu and his son Narayan Sai from north India, and Nithyananda from south India—all close to the parivar—taking on the role of gods to seduce their female devotees with the promise of divine salvation. They are facing criminal charges in the courts. Then, there are the BJP ministers and leaders, like Nihal Chand Meghwal (Union minister of state for chemicals and fertilisers), Kri­shnamurti Bandhi (BJP MLA from Chhattisgarh) and Madhu Chavan (BJP leader from Maharashtra) among many others—who have been accused of rape. They can perhaps be seen by the followers of Sangh parivar as reincarnations of the all-mighty rishis of the past (Parashara, Durvasa and others who could always get their own way by threats or curse), and as a privileged lot like them, can pick up any female of their choice, and—because of their present political clout—can silence their victims and their families with threats of elimination.

Given this reality, the present BJP-led government and its ideologues will have to make up their mind about the Maha­bharata. Since they revere the heroes and heroines of the epic, and want to prove that they were historical characters, they should permit the common citizens to emulate the liberal lifestyle that they led. But then, what happens to the Sangh parivar’s grandiose plan of creating “a morally pure Hindu” society populated by sexually constipated men and women? In order to overcome this embarrassing dilemma, the BJP government and its RSS mentors have two options. One, in obeisance to both the female and male deities and and mortals who are described in the epic as following a rather permissive sex life, they should scrap their own programme of imposing rules and restrictions for the man-woman relationship, ignore cases of pre-marital sex or relationships between consensual partners, and stop branding inter-religious liaisons like a Muslim boy’s love affair with a Hindu girl as ‘love jehad’. The other option is banning the Mahabharata in its original version altogether—so that the public does not have access to the full text. The RSS historians can bring out, instead, sanitised editions of the epic that blot out the explicitly described stories of the promiscuity of their deities and the birth of their heroes and heroines.

---

Source: http://www.outlookindia.com/article/The-Morality-Tale-That-The-Mahabharata-Just-Isnt/292624

Here is my reply 

Respected sir,

I read this beautiful E-mail. Oh my god ! what a interpretation of Adi parva of Mahabharata in modern way. We all know the story from our childhood, but never ever try to read this in this way. Actually now I realize that our minds are conditioned from childhood to read things in a particular way. This is really major issue that in our past people were not rigid, orthodox. Female had freedom to choose life partner. Pre marital and extra marital relation were also there but now a days Sangh or politicians controls our freedom on the name of so called culture. They are in power, so they have legitimized that Hindu should live like this.  But HINDU RELIGION was never rigid  in past this we can definitely say when we read book like Mahabharata.

Virginia Woolf -Quotation

Virginia Woolf -Quotation

This blog is written as a part of online discussion at Department of English, MKBU.

Dilip Barad Sir:

All students:

Here is an interesting writeup with top 10 quotes from Virginia Woolf.

Your task is to identify top 3 from these ten quotes and organise in the sequence of ur likeness. Do not miss to give the reason/s for your likeness.

Time duration 1 week. (18 to 25 Sept 20 15 )

Source: http://www.bustle.com/articles/57656-10-virginia-woolf-quotes-that-show-us-why-shes-still-a-literary-boss?utm_source=FBOnsite

10 Virginia Woolf Quotes That Show Us Why She's Still a Literary Boss

By KAREN GREEN

Virginia Woolf is always one of my picks when we play the, “Who would you invite to dinner?” game. (Amy Poehler and maybe Björk would also be there.) There is nothing that I wouldn’t want to talk with Virginia Woolf about, from the suffragette movement to literary criticism to what it was like to have William Thackery as a half-grandpa. I would impress her with tales of #yeseverywoman and horrify her with tales of Kim Kardashian’s fame, and she could tell me what it was like to be a founding member of the Bloomsbury Group. We would drink absinthe and laugh about love affairs that once seemed tragic, and Björk could compose a rock opera about it, set on Mars.

Yes, I have though about this once or twice.

We would all compare notes on life now versus life in 1882 when Ms Woolf was born, and life since 1941, when she filled her pockets with stones and walked into a river. I would ask her how she did it all, how she swam against the stream of propriety and expectation and convention, to become one of the greatest Modernist writers we’ve ever had, and a feminist whose words we’ve never stopped repeating. And then we’d eat the cake that Amy Poehler baked, discuss each of her most profound quotes in great detail, and make plans for our next dinner party.

With your birthday approaching on January 25, Ginnie, I want to say thanks for all the words of wisdom. Here, 10 Virginia Woolf quotes that show us why we need to keep remembering her years later.

1. “A woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction.”

Hell yes. Since Woolf published her famous essay in 1929, “A Room of One’s Own” has become a feminist battlecry. Appropriated from its intended audience of female artists, the simple demand for independence and privacy now feels like the most basic — though sometimes most difficult to achieve — right of women everywhere.

2. “So long as you write what you wish to write, that is all that matters; and whether it matters for ages or only for hours, nobody can say.”
Virginia Woolf wrote whatever subject she felt like writing about in whatever style she felt like writing in. Diaries, stream of consciousness, “purple” prose — Woolf refused to be pigeonholed. Oh, and she wouldn’t even give anybody a chance to reject her writing, by going straight to self-publishing.

3. “The older one grows, the more one likes indecency.”

Forget propriety and expectations. We can try to blame the Roaring ‘20s, but Woolf didn’t like to deny herself certain pleasures, whether it was a good book, a good debate, or an extramarital affair with another woman.

4. “Never pretend that the things you haven't got are not worth having.”
Virginia Woolf was not a complacent woman. She worked for the things she wanted with tireless enthusiasm, whether the pursuit was political, romantic, professional, or intellectual. Pretty cool for a woman practically bred for entitlement.

5. “To admit authorities, however heavily furred and gowned, into our libraries and let them tell us how to read, what to read, what value to place upon what we read, is to destroy the spirit of freedom which is the breath of those sanctuaries.”

Woolf was a member of the intellectual class, but she wasn’t a snob. She wrote a lot about books and reading, and was adamant that access, not judgment, was what readers deserved. It would have been fun to know what she thought of Fifty Shades of Grey.

6. “They can because they think they can.”
Virginia Woolf didn’t like limitations, and gave us robust, thinking female protagonists, from party-throwing Clarissa Dalloway to portrait-painting Lily Briscoe. But of course, the person who broke through the most barriers, rose to the most challenges, was Woolf herself.

7. “Once she knows how to read there's only one thing you can teach her to believe in and that is herself.”

Woolf believed women should possess intelligence and independence and pursued both in her life and her writing. Many of her protagonists struggle with the desire to achieve one or both of these things.

8. “The history of men’s opposition to women’s emancipation is more interesting perhaps than the story of emancipation itself.”
Virginia Woolf was not naïve enough to believe that just because women got the vote, that they had achieved equality. The more things change…

9. "It is fatal to be a man or woman pure and simple: one must be a woman manly, or a man womanly."
Woolf often said that she was bored by men, and a belief in gender fluidity and sexual freedom paired with her lackluster confidence in men’s authority was evident in much of her writing. Don’t let the cardigans fool you.

10. “If you do not tell the truth about yourself you cannot tell it about other people.”

In a time when silence, exile, denial, and shame were the prevailing attitudes towards sufferers of sexual abuse and mental illness, Woolf remained open and honest about her struggles. In the end, the knowledge that she could not escape her illness nor survive it any longer drove her to suicide at age 59, but she never once pretended that it wasn’t happening to her.

Here is my reply,

(1). “They can because they think they can.”

this is my most favorite quotation. it tells so many things, which can be extended in many pages. Before doing anything, self-confidence is necessary.

(Kadam ho  asthir ene marg nathi jadto,

Adag mann na manvi ne Himalay pan nthi nadto").

many times before giving stage performance we feel self-doubt, whether I can do this or not?. The. Moment you doubt yourself, you will fail. on the contrary, successful performer always says that they are self-confident that they can do it.

The character of Lily Brisco in To The Lighthouse is fine example of this that she finally achieves her vision and completes her painting. Even though Charles Tansley says that " women cannot paint or write. But then even she doesn’t lose confidence because she thinks she can.

(2) “Never pretend that the things you haven't got are not worth having.”

it is a human Psychology to satisfy his/her own ego, one always thinks that the things which they don’t get were not good for them.

in school our teacher of Psychology gave us example that A boy wanted to marry a beautiful girl, but he cant. so that boy satisfy himself by telling  that her character is not good.

( Grapes:Draksh khati che!!!!)

same thing Woolf says that if you don’t able to get things, then you are at fault. don’t blame the things.

(3) “A woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction.”

During Victorian time women used to read secretly. women like Jane Austen were hiding books under knitting. Even Mary Anne Evans had  to change her name to George Eliot. all this examples shows hardships of women in society. it demands freedom from patriarchy.

at the same time, female: wife or daughter are totally dependent on husband, father or brother. if they have to rely on men for small things, then we cannot expect much.

 A room of her own means total freedom & enough money, free to use the way she want.