The aim of this write-up is to explore the significance of this statement -
A is A
What it essentially implies that when one begins the journey of seeking the truth, he finally arrives at this point that truth is absolute and not relative - objective and not subjective.
To go deeper into this, it is necessary we clearly explain what is Absolute and what is Relative; what is Objective and what is Subjective?
Awaiting your response.
Sunday, 29 July 2007
Friday, 27 July 2007
Scientist meets the Child
Child - What is Science?
Scientist - Science is Logic.
Child - What is Logic?
Scientist - Logic is reason.
Child - What is Reason?
Scientist - Reason is the answer to the question Why.
Child - What is Why?
Scientist - Why is the most important question of life.
Child - What is Life?
Scientist - The attempt to answer Why.
Child - Does that mean Life is all about asking Why? That is what I always do.
Scientist - That means you are me, or I am you - for that is exactly what I always do too!
Scientist - Science is Logic.
Child - What is Logic?
Scientist - Logic is reason.
Child - What is Reason?
Scientist - Reason is the answer to the question Why.
Child - What is Why?
Scientist - Why is the most important question of life.
Child - What is Life?
Scientist - The attempt to answer Why.
Child - Does that mean Life is all about asking Why? That is what I always do.
Scientist - That means you are me, or I am you - for that is exactly what I always do too!
Saturday, 21 July 2007
Love versus Love
A sentence read nearly a decade ago echoes in mind as I think along these lines-
"Vaiyyaktik prem se Rashtriya Prem mahaan hota hai"
Translated, it becomes-
"Love for the Nation is greater than Love for the Individual"
Several examples for and against the statement comes to mind...examples from sources as diverse as History, Mythology and Fiction..
Akbar forcing Anarkali out of his kingdom and begging her not to return, even though he knew full well she was happiness personified for his beloved son..
Lord Ram ousting his dear wife to continue holding his claim to the tag of 'Maryada Puroshttam'...
Kunti never acknowledging Karna as her son for fear of discredit and disgrace...
Nehru and Lady Mountbatten never acknowledging their affair..
And in direct contrast we have the great King of England who gave up his throne to marry his sweetheart..
How does one analyse these?
Which betwixt the two is greater? Which is braver?
The regent who kills his inner self to show the world the face of a brave monarch?
Or the royalty that accepts the blows of society and his fall from honour to fulfill his heart's one desire?
The answer to this perhaps lies in the secret of what makes a leader..
To present one side of the coin, everyone cannot be a leader. A few have what it takes, only a few amongst these elite recognize their rare ability and still fewer wield this mighty sword correctly..these one-amongst-billions are, needless to say, the need of the day..the staple diet on which a nation, a community or a society feeds...for such a person to give up their position of responsibility for their personal needs will perhaps be seen as destructive..
Come to the other side of the coin...
Being a leader means possessing power...popularity..many a time, affluency...it is quite reasonable to suppose that not the thorns (read responsibilities) but the roses of 'Position' distracts a lover from his path of love...
Which side wins? Am I back to sqaure one? I wonder indeed!
Some pertinent questions that raise their heads...How can a dissatisfied and unhappy leader keep the people he leads happy? Everything said and done about the rarity of leaders, is it impossible to fill an empty social post? Isn't it more impossible to replace the object of love instead?
As I said, I wonder indeed!
"Vaiyyaktik prem se Rashtriya Prem mahaan hota hai"
Translated, it becomes-
"Love for the Nation is greater than Love for the Individual"
Several examples for and against the statement comes to mind...examples from sources as diverse as History, Mythology and Fiction..
Akbar forcing Anarkali out of his kingdom and begging her not to return, even though he knew full well she was happiness personified for his beloved son..
Lord Ram ousting his dear wife to continue holding his claim to the tag of 'Maryada Puroshttam'...
Kunti never acknowledging Karna as her son for fear of discredit and disgrace...
Nehru and Lady Mountbatten never acknowledging their affair..
And in direct contrast we have the great King of England who gave up his throne to marry his sweetheart..
How does one analyse these?
Which betwixt the two is greater? Which is braver?
The regent who kills his inner self to show the world the face of a brave monarch?
Or the royalty that accepts the blows of society and his fall from honour to fulfill his heart's one desire?
The answer to this perhaps lies in the secret of what makes a leader..
To present one side of the coin, everyone cannot be a leader. A few have what it takes, only a few amongst these elite recognize their rare ability and still fewer wield this mighty sword correctly..these one-amongst-billions are, needless to say, the need of the day..the staple diet on which a nation, a community or a society feeds...for such a person to give up their position of responsibility for their personal needs will perhaps be seen as destructive..
Come to the other side of the coin...
Being a leader means possessing power...popularity..many a time, affluency...it is quite reasonable to suppose that not the thorns (read responsibilities) but the roses of 'Position' distracts a lover from his path of love...
Which side wins? Am I back to sqaure one? I wonder indeed!
Some pertinent questions that raise their heads...How can a dissatisfied and unhappy leader keep the people he leads happy? Everything said and done about the rarity of leaders, is it impossible to fill an empty social post? Isn't it more impossible to replace the object of love instead?
As I said, I wonder indeed!
Sunday, 15 July 2007
Dashavtaar and Evolution of Life - some parallels
The story of Lord Vishnu’s ten avatars or incarnations is well known to devout Hindus.
A short and fast rehash for those who don’t.
1.Matsya Avatar – The Fish Incarnation
2.Kachhap Avatar – The Tortoise Incarnation
3.Varaha Avatar – The Boar Incarnation
4.Narsimha Avatar – The Lion-Man Incarnation
5.Vaman Avatar – The Dwarf Incarnation
6.Parasurama Avatar – The Axe-wielding Warrior Sage Incarnation
7.Sri Ram Avatar
8.Sri Krishna Avatar
9.Buddha Avatar
10.Kalki Avatar
(For more detailed stories refer http://www.punditravi.com/dasavtar__the_10_incarnations_of.htm)
While the tales regarding each incarnation make for interesting read, what is more interesting is the way evolution of life, and that of man, as predicted by modern science today, are to some extent borne out by the order of these avatars.
For instance, that Life originated in water is a well accepted fundamental – and the story of Dashavtaars begins with Matsya, in water.
The latter transfer of newfound life to land is commemorated by the amphibious Kachhap.
The next in line, the Varaha, is a big leap as it comes straight to the mammals, missing the reptiles and the birds – but the trend is maintained anyhow.
Narsimha, or the semi bestial being points towards the savage, non-humanized ancestor of man.
Vaman, or the dwarf man, is once again in tandem with popular evolutionary biology beliefs – the earliest species of hominid - Ardipithecus ramidus, was shown to be only 4 feet tall.
Parshuram – the angry warrior sage can be compared with the aggressive, Homo sapiens Neanderthals which is known to resemble Homo sapiens sapiens physically but was definitely more prone to violence.
Sri Ram and Sri Krishna, and Buddha denote the perfectly evolved man with a well-developed emotional side to their characters.
And Kalki may well be the Superman that the man of today will evolve into in a few thousand of years more.
Perhaps just one more indication that Vedas and Puranas contain a hidden science....just waiting to be explored some more....
Thursday, 12 July 2007
La Belle Dame Sans Balleza
Literally, this translates into - The Beautiful Girl Without Beauty.
I am referring to the new variety of Beautiful women who have 'arrived' on the silver screen.
Don't know about you, but it makes my skin crawl when I hear Rakhi Sawant and Mallika Sherawat being called beauties!! I am plain horrified to see Esha Deol cast as a beauty queen and Priyanka Chopra, Shamita Shetty, Udita Goswami and Sameera Reddy getting away with the title of gorgeous!! I have to run to change the channel when they air songs of Deepal Shaw, Shefali, Meghna Naidu and others of their ilk. The Channel V's Get Gorgeous is absolutely aptly named - the eeeks models (!)certainly need to make an effort to get Gorgeeous! And most of the Ekta Kapoor heroines certainly need all the jewellary and saris they get to look presentable on screen!
To acknowledge the truth, so many faces doing the rounds on the myriad TV channels are so dully average and uninspiringly alike! So few faces that can make one sit up and take notice...alas...!
True, very true indeed that Beauty lies in the beholder's eyes and its a very relative and subjective quality.
But I just could not stop myself from writing about this - man! Whatever happened to a Film Industry that had once provided us with Venuses like Madhubala, Waheeda Rehmaan, Sadhna, Sharmila Tagore and Saira Banu? Or Parveen Babi, Rekha, Dimple Kapadia and Tina Munim? Or Meenakshi Sheshadri, Madhuri Dixit and Neelam?
I suppose the parameters for assessing Beauty have changed drastically. Perhaps a heart-shaped face or deep almond-shaped eyes or long coiffuered hair have stepped aside and given way to long exposed limbs, six-pack abs and a freshly waxed cleavage!
I hope you will notice I am talking strictly about Beauty - Not Charm, not Acting Skills - and not Dancing ability.
I am talking only about the way people have begun to percieve beauty differntly.
The degree of artificiality in beauty has also increased with time. It is so difficult to determine that what I am calling Beauty on screen is genuine or a plastic surgeon's, a cameraman's, or a cosmetician's trick!
Who is responsible for causing this change in trend? The cosmetic industry? The Film Industry? The Viewers? I wonder...I seriously wonder...While the neo-belle-dame brigade goes ahead full swing making it impossible for me to watch Television!
I am referring to the new variety of Beautiful women who have 'arrived' on the silver screen.
Don't know about you, but it makes my skin crawl when I hear Rakhi Sawant and Mallika Sherawat being called beauties!! I am plain horrified to see Esha Deol cast as a beauty queen and Priyanka Chopra, Shamita Shetty, Udita Goswami and Sameera Reddy getting away with the title of gorgeous!! I have to run to change the channel when they air songs of Deepal Shaw, Shefali, Meghna Naidu and others of their ilk. The Channel V's Get Gorgeous is absolutely aptly named - the eeeks models (!)certainly need to make an effort to get Gorgeeous! And most of the Ekta Kapoor heroines certainly need all the jewellary and saris they get to look presentable on screen!
To acknowledge the truth, so many faces doing the rounds on the myriad TV channels are so dully average and uninspiringly alike! So few faces that can make one sit up and take notice...alas...!
True, very true indeed that Beauty lies in the beholder's eyes and its a very relative and subjective quality.
But I just could not stop myself from writing about this - man! Whatever happened to a Film Industry that had once provided us with Venuses like Madhubala, Waheeda Rehmaan, Sadhna, Sharmila Tagore and Saira Banu? Or Parveen Babi, Rekha, Dimple Kapadia and Tina Munim? Or Meenakshi Sheshadri, Madhuri Dixit and Neelam?
I suppose the parameters for assessing Beauty have changed drastically. Perhaps a heart-shaped face or deep almond-shaped eyes or long coiffuered hair have stepped aside and given way to long exposed limbs, six-pack abs and a freshly waxed cleavage!
I hope you will notice I am talking strictly about Beauty - Not Charm, not Acting Skills - and not Dancing ability.
I am talking only about the way people have begun to percieve beauty differntly.
The degree of artificiality in beauty has also increased with time. It is so difficult to determine that what I am calling Beauty on screen is genuine or a plastic surgeon's, a cameraman's, or a cosmetician's trick!
Who is responsible for causing this change in trend? The cosmetic industry? The Film Industry? The Viewers? I wonder...I seriously wonder...While the neo-belle-dame brigade goes ahead full swing making it impossible for me to watch Television!
Lost in Translation?!
It was with great anticipation that I picked up Tagore’s Chokher Bali for perusal.
It was with great disappointment that I put it down.
I sat back and reflected.
How could it be that Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore’s celebrated creation had left me cold! Had I gone out of my mind?
I could grasp nothing concrete from that vague ‘something missing feeling’ that had haunted me throughout the read.
The realization struck me in the most unexpected of places – while watching Sanjeev Kapoor’s Cookery session on the idiot box. He kept repeating the word ‘flavour’ and at its tenth mention, I sat up straight.
This was it!
Flavour!
The flavour of Tagore’s creation – of the Bangla tradition in that pre-independence era – were conspicuously missing from the English translation of his work!
Chokher Bali had been lost somewhere in translation.
I decided to give it another go. I read the English version of Sardindu Bindopadhyay’s Byomkesh Bakshi collection – though not at par with Chokher Bali, it was at least set in the same Bangla world! This time the feeling of unreality was markedly less. It did not feel as though Byomkesh and Ajit were puppets lip-syncing on stage, as I had felt with Binodini and Behari.
What was the difference? Why was this the case?
At first, I reasoned that Byomkesh was more of crime and investigation and less of culture and language and emotion as Chokher Bali had been. But I dismissed the notion soon as a fitter idea took its place.
The translator of Saradindu Bindopadhyay (Shrijeeta Guha) had used several Hindi and Bangla words in place of their English counterparts whereas that of Chokher Bali (Radha Chakravarty) had not.
This had somehow managed to provide a certain authenticity, a stamp of Bengal so to say, on the translated version.
Eureka!
If you leave books aside and regard the celluloid world, the tale is abjectly pitiable. Even less attention to maintaining the flavour is spared in this area – all those of you who have seen the Hindi versions of Harry Potter and Titanic will have to agree to this – the movies were so much caricature and so little movies! I was reading the Hindi sub-titles of The Mask and you wouldn’t believe it how they translated ‘Spicy Babe’. Forgive me, but I leave it to your knowledge of Hindi and your imagination powers to help decipher what its literal translation would be! You can’t? How about ‘Chhamiya Masaledaar’? Er – Gosh – Egads – Yikes – But there it is! True enough!
(Oh, and my barother wants me to believe that Spiderman is available with Bhojpuri sub-titles - anyone game for it? :-D)
The Tele-Shopping network or the Discovery Channel & NGC are still worse – they make you want to laugh and do nothing else! Especially the TSN is nothing but an elaborate joke and very little less, methinks at times. And as for Discovery…Frankly, the way they speak on Discovery…I once wondered if I was watching an Ekta Kapoor creation and not a treatise on African snakes.
You see language itself can be a source of constraint for any Translator. Language can be such a complexity. It is such an efficient mirror of culture and popular views – which are dynamic, diverse and developing every minute!
There are dozens of words that can be found in one and are missing from others – e.g. – a tailor is called ‘darzi’ in Urdu but I could find no suitable synonym for it in Hindi.
Herein, a translator has no option but to use the only word available.
Then there are the idioms and axioms and special phrases and similar sounding words that are so unique to one language. I feel especially sad when an intelligent pun has been made using words of one language and a translator can never achieve to transmit it faithfully in the other-language version.
On other occasions, some words simply refuse to be translated with the same feel to them. Example in quote – the word ‘mishti’ has such sweetness in it that the word ‘sweetmeats’ can not replace it!
The nature of the text is important of course. A philosophical treatise will not give as many hassles as the song ‘Beedi’ from Omkara… No jokes people – take it as an exercise! You can translate Coelho’s Alchemist more easily (If you know Brazilian, that is) than Gulzar's 'Beedi'…try it, try it!
Jokes apart, I hope you would perhaps now agree with me that a Translator is doing no mean task – and that he seldom gets the credit due to him when all we mention is the author’s name and forget his! In fact, do we even bother to know the name of those unheard of people who prepare sub-titles for movies?
It was with great disappointment that I put it down.
I sat back and reflected.
How could it be that Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore’s celebrated creation had left me cold! Had I gone out of my mind?
I could grasp nothing concrete from that vague ‘something missing feeling’ that had haunted me throughout the read.
The realization struck me in the most unexpected of places – while watching Sanjeev Kapoor’s Cookery session on the idiot box. He kept repeating the word ‘flavour’ and at its tenth mention, I sat up straight.
This was it!
Flavour!
The flavour of Tagore’s creation – of the Bangla tradition in that pre-independence era – were conspicuously missing from the English translation of his work!
Chokher Bali had been lost somewhere in translation.
I decided to give it another go. I read the English version of Sardindu Bindopadhyay’s Byomkesh Bakshi collection – though not at par with Chokher Bali, it was at least set in the same Bangla world! This time the feeling of unreality was markedly less. It did not feel as though Byomkesh and Ajit were puppets lip-syncing on stage, as I had felt with Binodini and Behari.
What was the difference? Why was this the case?
At first, I reasoned that Byomkesh was more of crime and investigation and less of culture and language and emotion as Chokher Bali had been. But I dismissed the notion soon as a fitter idea took its place.
The translator of Saradindu Bindopadhyay (Shrijeeta Guha) had used several Hindi and Bangla words in place of their English counterparts whereas that of Chokher Bali (Radha Chakravarty) had not.
This had somehow managed to provide a certain authenticity, a stamp of Bengal so to say, on the translated version.
Eureka!
If you leave books aside and regard the celluloid world, the tale is abjectly pitiable. Even less attention to maintaining the flavour is spared in this area – all those of you who have seen the Hindi versions of Harry Potter and Titanic will have to agree to this – the movies were so much caricature and so little movies! I was reading the Hindi sub-titles of The Mask and you wouldn’t believe it how they translated ‘Spicy Babe’. Forgive me, but I leave it to your knowledge of Hindi and your imagination powers to help decipher what its literal translation would be! You can’t? How about ‘Chhamiya Masaledaar’? Er – Gosh – Egads – Yikes – But there it is! True enough!
(Oh, and my barother wants me to believe that Spiderman is available with Bhojpuri sub-titles - anyone game for it? :-D)
The Tele-Shopping network or the Discovery Channel & NGC are still worse – they make you want to laugh and do nothing else! Especially the TSN is nothing but an elaborate joke and very little less, methinks at times. And as for Discovery…Frankly, the way they speak on Discovery…I once wondered if I was watching an Ekta Kapoor creation and not a treatise on African snakes.
You see language itself can be a source of constraint for any Translator. Language can be such a complexity. It is such an efficient mirror of culture and popular views – which are dynamic, diverse and developing every minute!
There are dozens of words that can be found in one and are missing from others – e.g. – a tailor is called ‘darzi’ in Urdu but I could find no suitable synonym for it in Hindi.
Herein, a translator has no option but to use the only word available.
Then there are the idioms and axioms and special phrases and similar sounding words that are so unique to one language. I feel especially sad when an intelligent pun has been made using words of one language and a translator can never achieve to transmit it faithfully in the other-language version.
On other occasions, some words simply refuse to be translated with the same feel to them. Example in quote – the word ‘mishti’ has such sweetness in it that the word ‘sweetmeats’ can not replace it!
The nature of the text is important of course. A philosophical treatise will not give as many hassles as the song ‘Beedi’ from Omkara… No jokes people – take it as an exercise! You can translate Coelho’s Alchemist more easily (If you know Brazilian, that is) than Gulzar's 'Beedi'…try it, try it!
Jokes apart, I hope you would perhaps now agree with me that a Translator is doing no mean task – and that he seldom gets the credit due to him when all we mention is the author’s name and forget his! In fact, do we even bother to know the name of those unheard of people who prepare sub-titles for movies?
Wednesday, 4 July 2007
Disclaimer!
The Images below are the creation of my sweet cuz Geetika :-)
But as the wall, colour combi (and incidentally the financial inputs) are mine, I feel it deserved a space in my blog page.
Kidding...Geetika ma'am, u rock!
But as the wall, colour combi (and incidentally the financial inputs) are mine, I feel it deserved a space in my blog page.
Kidding...Geetika ma'am, u rock!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
