Mention of caste in Basavaraju gAri poem on Gandhiji
Srini (srini@usiva.com)
Thu, 27 Feb 97 13:44:47 EST
Sri Veluri Venkateswara Rao gaaru detailed the historical "baggage" of
the words I mentioned in the earlier posting ('mankind', 'fairer sex')
which I did not know earlier and is educating to me. Thank You.
It reinforced my understanding that words do not mean the same thing at all
times and climes. And it is important to see the context, big picture or
backdrop of the writing to understand the intent of author better. Of course
that is only if we _want_ to understand the author.
Coming back to the source of discussion. I just think that knowing
the honesty of intention of the author, taking deep offense for the
mention of Gandhiji's caste in the poem "kollayi gaTTitEnEmi", and
suggesting to drop such a piece from literature itself, is over-reacting.
I do not justify or encourage its usage now, but in the context of its
usage and the time of its writing, and most importantly against the
backdrop of the author's reverance and regards to Gandhiji, the outrage
to eliminate such writings is unwarranted.
He wrote:
>Sri Sreenivas Nagulapalli on 2/24/97 3:35 PM
>makes an interesting (funny or not so funny) observation
>while responding to Sri Ari Sitaramayya's post that
>mentioned about Mahatma Gandhi's loin cloth and his caste.
>
>>"---Besides, if we start reading literally, we lose all
>>the beauty, charm and grace of many expressions that bring
>>liveliness to the language.---"
>
>As a physicist pretending to be still practicing, beauty,
>charm strangeness, flavor, etc., are simply the quantum
>numbers associated with some of the 'elementary' particles.
>As such, one must literally read them, not just read them;
> -- and, I mean it literally!
The fact that beauty, charm strangeness, flavor etc., are simply the associated
quantum numbers, only enhances (and never decreases) the mystery and awe of
their beauty. All are just atoms, yet the wonderful combination of some result
in a soft-petalled, vibrant-colored,fragrant flower while another combination
yields abhorrent,stinking trash.
The passage by one of the celebrated, brilliant Physicists of this century-
Mr. Richard Feynman made a deep impression on me and I would like to share it
in this context.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Excerpted from his book "What do you care what other people think?" ]
"I have a friend who's an artist, and he sometimes takes a view which I don't
agree with. He'll hold up a flower and say, "Look how beautiful it is." and
I'll agree. But then he'll say, "I as an artist can see how beautiful a flower
is. But you, as a scientist, take it all apart and it becomes dull." I think
he's kind of nutty.
First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people- and
to me, too, I believe. Although I might not be quite as refined aesthetically
as he is, I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. But at the same time, I see
much more in the flower than he sees. I can imagine the cells inside, which
also have a beauty. There's beauty not just at the dimension of one centimeter;
there's also beauty at a smaller dimension.
There are the complicated actions of the cells, and the other processes. The
fact that the colors in the flower have evolved in order to attract insects to
pollinate it is interesting; that means insects can see the colors. That adds a
question: does this aesthetic sense we have also exist in lower forms of life?
There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of
science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower. It
only adds. I don't understand how it substracts."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I feel I must have strayed far on this topic! Sorry!
With best regards
-Srinivas Nagulapalli