The vanity of human wishes, and the vanity of their fulfillments, results only in a leaden confluence, silty and shallow. The ever convalescent sense and the ever recuperating mirth are both, senile enough to choose the same eternal cemetery for their haven, all the while trying to distance themselves from their brooding whereabouts. Revolt only leads to a promenade, the cobbles of which are murdered aspirations and the promenade on which ends up in trampling the dying ones. But stoicism does not guarantee anything, while mutiny ends up in anomie.
If all are thinking, then all are thinking. But their camouflage of thoughts is accurate enough to an extent where surroundings take over the demesne of identity. The individual identity always has to accede to the notions of the larger framework. Everyone thinks, but at the same time no one ponders. Everyone think, but he thought is always conditioned. This choked individualism is the silt and the banality of the same is the shoal. If all are wishing, then all are. But the prodigality and rationality of the wishes need to be based upon the individualistic thoughts, and there comes the need to shun this camouflage. Hibernation is always over an extended period of time and arises out of the need to survive. But camouflaging is different from hibernation, and the surroundings are not the pole star. Change seasons, and your masquerade becomes your nemesis. The milieu changes, but perfection requires precision. Water needs all hundred degrees to turn to steam. And its often the hundredth degree which is latent and the requires the longest wait.
I am sure I would not have wanted to write this. And I am surer, I would not have wanted anyone to know "How I broke a heart". But the everlasting exemplars which are embedded in my memory do not seem to be in fixity. And before they get eroded by the beatings of time (cliches are expected to be pardoned), I wish to write everything at which I feel like stopping a moment or so, while giving a thought to. Behaviors, thoughts, opinions, feelings...everything. Another aspect which reflects my personality, and which is certain to be reflected as I write, is the wayward drift of thoughts. I have seldom completed anything as I thought to, before beginning to write.
I do not dream while sleeping. But when I do, I seldom have bad dreams (the ones I wish I had not dreamed). And I do not want to dream the undesired. I dream I am in love. I dream I like someone, who's been closely associated with me. I dream of some unknown face and wish I could see it alive. I dream of people chanting my name and praises for me, surrounding me. I dream about ghosts, not ugly though, and my frightened states. Sometimes, I dream that I am running after a train, obviously the one to board, and then I want to keep running. The whistle has been long blown, and I am well short of my ground...the anxiety...I love to dream on. (Often, even though I wake up, I refuse to end my dream, and keep sleeping, in a faint hope to dream of catching the train). I dream of the vast ocean; I dream of...of a happy conversation; I dream of an angry hag and an ugly classmate I was afraid of. I dream I am one of the members of Lamb Of God. I dream of a....whatever!
I am not sure if I actually have dreams of the aforementioned. But I am positive that I want to dream of these things. I want to dream of ideas that leave me craving for more. I want to dream of dreams. I want to dream, like every other fellow, of a healthy GPA (I had only 1 dream regarding academics, a good one, and it somehow was pretty accurate). I want to dream of people saying good things about me. I want to dream of the future. I want to dream of the girl I met on the train. I want to dream of the girl whom I had a chat with, the other day. I want dream of myself, fallen in love. I want to dream of my charming romance. I want to dream to see the chase successful. I want to dream of my music band. I want to dream of a better hairstyle. I want to dream of a fairer complexion. I want to dream that I am not just a jack, but an ace. I want to... (STOP IT NOW. ENOUGH)
(YOU MIGHT HAVE STARTED THINKING...)
(OTHERS MIGHT AS WELL HAVE ALREADY ABANDONED THE BLOG) :(
One more thing, and very curious and very strange but very embarrassing. In most of my dreams (I dare say 90%), I dream of girls. My mother, my sisters, my girlfriend, the girl I knew sometime, my sociology teacher, and often, the few unseen faces. And the good thing is that all these are "HAPPY DREAMS". (I am embarrassed but there is a grin and a broad one, on my face.) And my family is one of the notions I very, very seldom dream of, which makes it all the more embarrassing. I do not see the ones who I take for granted. But I try hard to keep thinking of the things I wish to see fulfilled, even though through MY DREAMS.
There's a river and it flows,
By the road beside her door
And she's staring it
Smiling so sadly.
On her doorstep she sits
Waiting all day she sings
But she stares at it
Smiling so sadly
It's the song you've never heard
Of the beautiful sea bird
And its wings cut down
By the travelers
From the dawn until the dusk
Flying over the cluster
Of dead buds and leaves
In the wilderness
Its her face that's gone so cold
Beaten by the cruel fall
And her gaze that speaks
'bout her suffering.
And her eyes, dead as gold
And the scars so manifold
Of the bruises that speak
Of her agonies.
When she picks up those stones
Throws them into the burn
With the feeling that she's
Had the last laugh.
makes me wonder
When she swears at the brook
Cursing all that it took
With its waters, stealing
Her happiness.
she makes me wonder.
But see, the brook, it overflows
Swells beyond its bound shores
Rising slowly to kill,
Like a monster.
As I stare at her wicked smile
When she frolics like a child
But she knows she'll drown
In the waters.
this makes me tremble.
And as the brook, it overflows,
I see her sit with eyes closed
And she waits for her stairway
To heaven.
Makes me want her
When she thinks she knows it all
As she listens to the call
Of the bird that was caught
By the travelers.
It makes me want her.
But She's taken by the flood
By the time I reach her hut
And I stare at the stream,
Smiling sadly.
And I swear at the brook
Cursing all that it took
When I stare at the flood
Smiling sadly.
Nip my fall, when stars I stare,
In arms of Stygian thoughts that glare
At my wits. Help me brace their scorch
And then,
Grant me death, I'll ask no more!
Bring to me, the drops of red,
From corpse of my soul, in the land of dead
Hopes and wishes, and turn them pink.
And then,
Grant me death, I'll ask no more!
Hold me when I, ridges climb,
With vaunted pride, to hear the chime
Of winds that cut through many a throat.
And then,
Grant me death, I'll ask no more!
Help me breathe, the chilling dawns,
Guide my steps, as I climb on
The flight of choking satisfaction.
And then,
Grant me death, I'll ask no more!
Kiss me love, your hues I don,
Untie the clumsy knots of morn,
And sieve my life, up in your abode,
O! Grant me death, I ask no more!
Yes, Joseph was very different. A simplistic behavior, if insufficient, he had vices, so stupid, that the opinions on his existence were more of pity than wonder. No one took him for granted, OK, but he was not celebrated either. (His first verbal encounter with the lady in the park and the rolling balls is loquacious enough to bear a testimony to his social status). Anonymity was the wrongly embellished watermark in his empty laughter, anonymity which he preferred to name solitude and loneliness. His moments in retirement were the ugliest. Many blued under the verisimilitude of satisfaction, a few were consumed in the dreary vaults of hibernation and the remaining, the longest, scratched away the last bits of pride and amour for his self. His heightened ego, often was the cause of this seclusion and deterministically eroded away to the ideology of nihilism. The notion of meaningful existence was the target oh his idiosyncrasies. The desire for a classified objective in his life was, perhaps, the only cause, he ignored his incognito reality and the intangible forsakenness.
He wasn't thinking consciously now. The dominant thought in his latent sub-conscience was the phantom of satisfaction. The disturbing part of the same was the threat of the ever issuing mutiny, the mutiny which would be born out of the success of the reigning satisfaction, the mutiny which was, phenomenally, the dormant agent of the existing schism within his faculty of reasoning. Desecrated? Celebrated?? Huh... did it matter any more?
The clarity of the cause, the causality of his presence were reasons enough for his assumed state of pseudo-satisfaction. The extent of reliability on the choices he had hitherto made, was the cause of unrest. "I shouldn't have told her..." " Should I tell her...?"
"...Because you are sure you never can tell..." The song played listlessly in his ears. The visibility was growing fainter with the light. The glaze of the dust-smitten sun was no better than the subway bulb he was standing beneath. The sharply outlined silhouette of a twosome slowly broke into a vision, resembling that of a wet stratosphere. There were no more shadows stamped on the asphalt beneath. The sandstone mansion had survived one more day of gruesome battle against the array of sun rays and the sun, finally, was forced to retire. The mauve was swallowed by the leaden sky.
But the wait was still azure, and Joseph, still satisfied.
That the day was "so short", would make me so rude
Saying she was "so hot", would make me so prude
When I talk about her, in a manner so crude
Beginning my story, to her, a prelude.
The journey began, bereft of energy
And I sat alone and guarded by the clergy
The one on my right had a face so dingy,
And the one on my left cast a look so stingy.
Awaiting a face at which I could stare,
Munching my nails, and tearing my hair,
At last I bowed down, began my prayer
"O God, please trap me a girl in my snare."
Champing and chafing, I thus tried to sleep
With a bleeding heart, and a pain so deep,
Marauded, my thoughts, my chances so bleak,
Of gazing at the species, I then longed to meet.
Marooned by the fortune, I lay in repose,
When the scent of her hair flooded my nose
Beaten by ill luck, sick of its blows,
I thought it was just my wish for my ROSE.
When I closed my eyes, hoping some rest,
Then all of a sudden, I felt in my chest
The click of her heels. On my soul's behest,
I yelled to the Lord, "Don't you molest."
I pulled up my blanket, and covered my face
But a healthy commotion smothered the place
Enraged, I woke up, the unrest, to chase
And then my eyes split open, in wonder, in gaze.
Beside me, stood a lass, so white
The hue of her drape, so joyous, so light
The bliss in her eyes, darker than night
The gleam in her eyes, brighter than the bright.
My breath, it seemed, was put to a halt,
My heart, it suffered, so violent a jolt
My spirits ran amok, like a colt,
When I saw her face, a sprouted "MARIGOLD".
The time and the place had been eventfully decided. They were to see each other and wishfully, this would be the last time would be “seeing” each other. The act of ignorance and hence the subsequent indifference had dug its lair into their brains. They had taken a severe beating from the tiring exhaustion and the infinite degree of boredom heaped upon them by this mounting strangulation. Both of them were mindful of the other’s infidelity; both of them were aware of the either’s bondage and priorities; both of them pined for independence; both of them had resigned.
The wait was a patient one.
******************************
“You can take my overcoat, if it comforts you.”
Joseph “Droll” was a tall man, though not tall enough to snatch your attention. His three-and-a-half feet torso and an uncannily slender waistline gave a copy-book picture of a eucalyptus. His peaceful face bore not a wrinkle and the tight, pinkish skin gave him the look of a cold, wet lobster. The rat-ish nose was just enough to keep him breathing, and alive. The black in his eyes was black enough to instill a sense of uneasy isolation, and the only feature noteworthy in the whole of his countenance was the breadth, or more accurately, the volume of his “lusty” lips, though it bought him more embarrassment, than it earned him laurels. No wonder, but for his lips, he was not popular among women.
His booming voice beat on her eardrums with the frequency, faster than the thrash she was listening to. For a moment or so, she almost seemed to be toppling from the fence she was straddling. Hurriedly, her supple form regained its composure.
******************************
“Thanks, but I think I am better off on my own,” was the reply. The lady wore a teasingly friendly look, friendlier than he had expected. The rest of her was silently gazing at the steadiness in his steps as he walked past her. Proud as a peacock, wondered she. This was the second time the offered had been refused.
Joseph tried to act friendlier. A man in his mid-thirties and still unmarried should not have any different thoughts. The time of the year and the hour of the day gave reason enough for the offered to have been offered. The smooth currents were soft on her dusky melanin. With her only in a thin drape of satin, the chill got it feast of the day. April, after all, is not the cruelest month, and the winter wind is crueler than human ingratitude. Joseph was thinking fast. This was not the first time he was strolling in the Green Square, and definitely not the first lady he was trying to help. "What's wrong if I offer her my overcoat. I got it laundered today, and moreover its a pleasant perfume that I am wearing . And besides , its chilly and she is only in a satin."
Confidently, Droll made his second remark: "I thought you might be feeling, you know, kinda..."
"Shut up, or I will pluck your balls and give them to the same child..."
Before he was done with his 'help', and even before his butts found some ground, her icily cold, ferocious glare conveyed her reply.
He was ruffling the hair of the ten year old, who had come by them searching for his balls, while expressing himself. Casually speaking, his eyes met those of hers, and a chill of her look ran down his spine. The gush of his feelings was stopped abruptly by the dam. He could not help imagining his balls...wait a minute, which balls was she talking about? his eyeballs or... no, no second thought. The lady looked decent and aren't decent girls supposed to talk decent things? She must have meant his...whatever. All he could think of was the cruel pain in his eyes, the sadistic grin on her face and a sense of immense satisfaction in the boy's movement, after being promised the first of their kind balls as the gift. Three different expressions, three reasons, all valid enough.
His daydream was disturbed by the ghoulish vision of bursting balls and the voyeurism of the lady.
After all, the winter wind was really kinder than the human ingratitude.
With a lit lantern, in the radiant hours of the morning, the madman ran out into the market place and cried out: “I seek God! I seek God!” Since many of the people gathered there did not believe in God, he provoked a great deal of laughter. Is he lost? Is he afraid? Has he departed on a long voyage? Or has he emigrated? - were hysterical reactions. They howled and laughed.
The madman leaped into their midst, and piercing them with his stare, said: “Where has God gone? I’ll tell you. We have killed Him. You and I- we both have killed him. But how did we do this? Where are we going to? Are we not plunging down? Are we not drifting through an infinite nothing? Don’t you still hear the sound of the undertakers? God is dead and will always remain so.”
“There has never been a greater deed; and those who are born after us, for the sake of this deed, shall belong to a history, higher than all up until this moment.”
With that he became silent and contemplated his listeners; and they too fell silent and stared at him in shock. Disappointed, he hurled his lamp at the ground and walked away, saying: “My time has not yet come. This monumental event is yet to come. It is yet to reach your ears, though long done. Thunder and lightening need time to strike; the light from the stars takes time to reach the earth. This deed is most distant that the distant stars, and yet they have done it themselves.”
Later that day, he was heard with his requiem in the churches. Dragged out and forced to account for himself, he had only one reply, “What are these churches, if not the graves and sepulchers of God?”
P.S. this is one of my favorite extracts written by the philosopher Nietzsche in his "Gay Sciences".
The shrieking quiescence piercing my throat,
Ejaculates a violently pacifying nimbus.
The smoky zephyr rekindles my goad,
My phantom awaits the stalking Succubus.
Doleful stars, scouring the graves,
Snatch the dying flesh of the phaeton.
Lunatic Luna, arousing its slaves,
Calmly hacks the clandestine orison.
Zombies surround me, bathed in mire,
Phoenixes, bewailing their self-destruction;
The brightly dark sables conspire,
Building my pyre, my death construction.
My body, crumbling, so long has hanged,
On poles, fettered amidst the dead.
I wait, foreseeing my doom being planned,
An iron maiden, donning my head.
The Beast arrives, Succubus behind,
With a sanguinary memento, plucked from the bliss
Of surmounting terror. That apocalyptic mind
Chars my lips, giving me, my steaming Kiss.
First love is a little foolishness and a lot of curiosity. I am sorry for the insolence, but Mr. Shaw definitely meant it to be the first step towards love. When people say they have fallen in love, the prized bone of contention becomes the futility, read fatality, of the state of mind into which they are lodged. Come on, love is not what alms is to a beggar. You go begging for love but you don’t get it every now and then, beside every altar. After all, who that once loved remains poor? When it’s love, it should be love, actually. It’s very true that many a times people do take steps towards love, but you fall in love only once. And let me remind you, love is not an abyss, but a cauldron of quagmire. The more you try to get out, the more you get soaked into it. When you fall in love, there’s the metaphysical gravity, don’t know why Einstein refuses, that which by then apprises you of all sorts of foolishness and settles all your curiosities. First love is the only time when an individual acts incapably sane. Another very quaint misgiving is the coin of explanation forged from the molten dung of human reason. When you say you are in love, doesn’t is epistemologically, read etymologically, quell the rebellion your foolhardiness arouses? If you love someone because of something, it is plain and simple- it’s that material something you like, not that someone. And then you no longer desire only that someone, but all others with the possession of that something (well, do mark my usage of words). If you love someone, you simply love that someone. Why try and give a reason to the unreasonable? The greatest tragedy of mankind is the adidas, read impossible is nothing, misconception, where it tries to trespass its domain groping for an answer to love. It is then they forget that love is abstract. Anything abstract, I hope you agree, is unreasonable. Why do you pray to GOD? Or is there a God? Why do you live? Do you need a reason to live? Why do you love? Do you need a reason to love? Or do you actually love? Love is love’s answer. You love someone because you simply love that someone. Well, the question of love doesn’t leave me. Love is often said to be a result of alienation, and leading to alienation. Pardon me, but either the source is unaware of love, or grossly misinterprets alienation. Love is an abstract measure of the organic solidarity in the humankind. Love is an outcome of affective actions. Love is involuntary. Love binds, it doesn’t alienate. Alienation is becoming foreign to society, and how can you become foreign when you are woven very much into it. You can’t be alienated if you love the system that alienates you.
Well, you may ask as to when I know if it is love. People, if it is love you will not ask. You may say, was it not the day I was born that I fell into love; where did that first love, curiosity and foolishness thing go? People, start believing in love at first sight. Don’t you love your parents? Was it not them you saw first? And as far as the problem of this kind of love and that kind of love is concerned, well, you have to borrow one common word “love” for both the kinds, till a new word is defined to suit your needs (In the end, one does not always end up with his wishes fulfilled). People, love is not the child of disillusion, but it is the parent of illusion. Love conquers all.
If love is a red dress, give me one in velvet. Not that I don’t have a velvet, it’s just that I am dying for the red one. We have our fair shares of both, thorns and roses. Only that people like the pain of the thorns more than the warmth of the rose; that the pain of the thorns lingers longer than the smell of the roses. I don’t want to be opiated with the gore of bloody thorns, let me embrace the anodyne of the roses. If love is a flower, give me the red rose.
First love, actually, is a little foolishness and a lot of curiosity; only that the foolishness thing makes you repent and the concept of curiosity fails you in your ultimate objective. I am aware of the usage of words, and there lies the stark element of foolishness. Of course, it should not startle you if I propose that the very conception of the same forwards you into the realm of the innocuous and inane irrationality.
The philosophy of alienation scores poorly in all forms of its applications, and the story is no different here. The love for someone is just a measure of the amount of recognition you receive when you make yourself foreign to the society as a whole, in favors of the enamored individual. Love as a notion, is introduced to let you know the strength of your individuality, and the sycophants who proclaim themselves as your “lovers” are mere stooges in this altruistic social outlook. Alluding from my previous version, the whole discussion concludes in the cruelty of the providence, in using “love” just as an expression for continuation of its potency. How true it seems to me now!
My cousin someday surfaced the probable confession a man in love would make. The metaphysical aspect of love brings out momentous facts about the same. People seek shelter in this so-named interdependence. The paradox lies in the fact that this “understanding” first leads to the individual’s alienation and gradually this alienation becomes the one’s resignation to the same. This concludes in the one seeking refuge in the bounds of “love”. The interesting part in this context would be the inherent reply to the question, “Do you love me?” The reply, most often, is an assertion stating some bodily characteristics, and a great deal of emotional stuff. Love is identified with feelings like trust, emotional bondage understanding et al. The final statement ends the reply, in a sigh, “Do I need a reason to love you?”
Yes, you bloody need a reason to love someone. Just browse the lexicon for the meaning of this word, and you get my intentions. Beg your pardon, but this very thought drives me into the portals of nonsensical re-arguing. Shakespeare rightly says that it’s the complexity of the situation, more than the situation itself, which drives you out of your reason and puts the thought of suicide in your mind. (I am not thinking of a suicide anyway…..).
“Why do you keep mentioning her? You don’t love me.anymore.”; the obvious answer to a statement which it is meant for. Yes. There the failure of love portrays itself again. You are free to love as many individuals as you choose. You are free to decide on who should you shower your love and who should remain devoid of it. Love is just a gross exaggeration of one’s liking for the other. Ah! There I hit upon the right word. Liking. You never love, you always like, and this extent of your liking, your inclination, defines the new term: LOVE, and thus, weird definitions. They say love is free of bounds and is unconditional. Well, a husband is bounded by the society to “love” his wife, and vice versa, out of some socially accepted etiquette. There emerges the difference between love and liking. Love is a bondage where as liking is not. Liking doesn’t require situational adaptations, Love does. Liking does not require your constant attention, Love does. Liking doesn’t demand your continuous thought, Love does. Liking cares no expectations, Love does. Liking needs no explanations, Love does. You dislike someone if you don’t like the one, but you desert and hurt someone emotionally, if you no more love the one. This is what the underlying failure of Love is apparently. The faculty of human reasoning is bounded and its reins are controlled by Love. How rightly they claim Love to be blind!
A brief discussion, apart from ‘this type of love’. Let me give a brief view of family love. You may say that this type of love is pure and free of any of the aforementioned vices. But let me introduce to you the concept of privatization and property. Economically, Marx says that the history of men is nothing but their economic evolution, and rightly so. A family loves the offspring because its existence and identity depends on the offspring. The latter loves because the latter inherits.
Simple enough!
“Love” is named to give a reason and furtherance to identity. This foolish and quaint misinterpretation of ideas is what leads to the sustenance of the philanthropic existence of identity, and the existence of anthropos.
Thought it was just That fatuous, ephemeral stir. When I first saw her Dancing so gaily, The elegance of her silhouette And thought of her daily.
Thought I was confused, When I said I loved her.
The dawn in her eyes, The silk of her hair, The spring of her smile, I couldn’t but just stare. The touch of her scent And my timid sighs, Oh! How soon it was That we bade goodbyes.
Just thought I knew, When I said I loved her.
The last that we met, I remember, she cried. And my love for her Then, I could not hide. She rose and planted A kiss on my forehead, And how soon I realized, That nothing was ever unsaid.
Surety creeps in, when I now said I loved her.
My love for my girl, Was not just a banter And I know I mean it, When I say I love her.
“Our’s is not to question why, Our’s is, but to live and die.”
I don’t exactly recall the source of this couplet, or if it is one, but just reminisce the school days when I first read MILTON. One of his sonnets, on his blindness, beautifully presents the idea of procrastination of authentic thought process. The shock in the octet, where Milton bewails HIS gift being snatched by HIM, thereby, him lodged to uselessness, the allusion to the parable of talent, and questioning HIM, is subdued by the demand of servitude for the one who is nothing but a concoction of beliefs, false and blinded.
Milton says, they serve HIM best who bear HIS mild yoke and who just stand and wait, and I demand justification through the rest of my writing.
Expectation and beliefs, those naïve superstitions, more than often, quieten REASON, which I believe to be the most sophisticated of all human endowments. More than often we fail to reason, and when its otherwise, we feel excluded, or rather I should say ostracised; trying to sound type of rational and sort of ontological, ends up in a tiring prolixity.
What is it, if not PARADISE QUIT? The Gifts of man, cleverly snatched by the giver, what is it, if not PARADISE SNATCHED? The indictment and the ‘retribution’ of pagans by the so called religion, what is it, if not PARADISE DENIED?
LUCIFERISM only! What is Lucifer? Virtual embodiment of reason, or a real cherub, who tried to be inquisitive? Or does it signify that “disobedience means to burn and burn for ever in unimaginable agony for all eternity?” It is said that among all dangers on earth, there is none more dangerous more than a rich reason. It is possible to teach an ass and make it talk, but to blind, delude and destroy reason, next to impossible. Lucifer, being sent to the lake of fire, or in equal probability, he choosing to go there, was the outcome of his desire to be reasonable. Well, well, Lucifer is the refined version of Satan, or may be Satan a crude name for him. Believed to be the prince of lies, Lucifer is said to have once guarded the throne of GOD, the brightest of all angels, the signet of ‘perfection’, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty, blameless from the day it was created, until when his wisdom was corrupted by the reason of his brightness. And then, the fall, the things of fire; and Lucifer was poised as the epitome of terror for having personified mutiny, freedom of thought and reason.
I don’t claim to state the philosophical existence of devil himself, or Lucifer, as it is named. I don’t believe in the BIBLE or the Christian God, but with no offence to the theists, the only thing which I feel like truth in Christianity is the existence of Christ.
Back to Lucifer! The name is bearer of light, and my claim is to falsify the “what’s in a name” thing. Light is often an allusion to reason, knowledge, intellect and power of discernment. If at all I do start to believe in Christianity, I would develop more questions than a convalescent faith. Why did GOD throw out Lucifer when he started to question HIM? Why did GOD not kill him, like he did to them in the GREAT FLOOD? Why is it, that to conquer sin, the inquisition used physical abuse?
Bluntly, my view is, that all the stories are told from the point of view of ‘GODISTS’. GOD is documented as a sadist and the central of all dogmas, if you see it from my window. The answer to Job, the reply to Joshua, in which GOD rebukes for questioning him, and asserts in pointlessly accepting him as faith, and burning those who dare question him to spread the fate of disobedience; all portray him as a sadist. May well have been the reason why Lucifer, the brightest of all, was dissatisfied. God punished ADAM and EVE just for eating the fruit of knowledge and ‘disobeying’ him, in pursuit of their pleasure. Don’t these fables, as told by GODISTS themselves bring out god as the SATAN himself! Why did god let Lucifer live was he evil? Just to assert his presence in curbing evil, or satiate his sadism, or in a flint of hope, that Lucifer might one day return to serve him?
They call Lucifer the prince of lies, and they themselves define lie as anything that contradicts the word of GOD. A lie is then, the questioning of dogmatic beliefs of the BIBLE and GOD’s representative on earth. Thus, praise lies, and adore Lucifer, for in his quest of rationality, he gave up the heavens. How cruelly GOD contrives for his dominion, how shrewdly HE plots for authority! Lucifer was a free thinker and of course free thinkers do not make good slaves! For our part we find it a lot easier to follow than to think for ourselves, to face the horrors of responsibility. Originality seems to be the other world!
We are born sinners, as the GODISTS say, and the SON OF GOD gave his life for our sins. Tell me, how do you account for my deeds? Let me remind you again that these stories are told by people who are blinded by the power of hypocrisy and false servitude; people who claim to be superior in servile beliefs; people who don’t think for themselves.
Lucifer may well have QUIT the PARADISE. Lucifer might well have RESIGNED!
First love is a little foolishness and a lot of curiosity. To what extent is G.B.Shaw's doggerel justifiable, is something worth giving a profuse thought to,when we put into question, the panache lying beneath the palpitations of a Romeo, when he stops blathering, stands beneath the facade of the quasi-quagmire labyrinth of the palais of his dreams,beside his (first of many to be) Juliets. But then isn't Romeo and Juliet tragedy in itself ?
I would rather fancy questioning, being in the stead of Shaw, if it was the first love he meant or was it an intention to mean one's first affair? It should not take me by surprise if someone turns up with questions on love. But whether it be an affair or love, the cruelty of Providence lies in the fact that it uses us, with love just being an expression for the continuation of its domineering presence, for the continuation of its creation, for He needs someone to make Him feel His presence, His potency. Writing so, neither do I intend to hurt a theist, nor do I aim at doing so.
Just love. Shaw called first love as foolishness and curiosity. Taking stands on his point view, curiosity seems to be a far fetched thought. Yet again, you never know the moment you fall in love. What can be yet another question is when does one know one loves someone? It was easy on the part of Longfellow to say- "It is easy to know that you are in love once you are in love." But he doesn't seem to make a point and we can't stand by romanticism.
I just am reminded of the silver screen, which portrays this feeling for various age groups, in various situations. My obsession with Wilde again brings to my mind- "There can be passion, enmity, infatuation, friendship but there is no place for love between a man and a woman". A man always likes to be called a woman's 'first love' and probably a week or two after they start seeing each other he takes a chance. On the other hand, a woman always desires to be a man's last romance. A serious point that I might have brought forward lies in the two different terms that I used for men and women. This also puts forth that women 'fall in love' when they get tired of loneliness, and men because they are too curious. Doesn't Shaw stand justified ? At least when it comes to 'curiosity'. Foolishness need no mention since the aforementioned thoughts speak aloud my views on his second stance.
Just because you like someone, or someone makes you feel at home in the one's company, does not have any implication of love. Methinks love is just a gross exaggeration of one's liking for someone over the others. Love is a temporary insanity curable by marriage. But again Shaw's influence crops up- Isn't marriage a alliance between a man who can't sleep with his window shut and a woman who Do you need any reason to love? (I admit I do not understand half the things he says.) Why do you love someone? Just because you like someone, it is appreciation ; someone loves you, its reciprocation ; you feel for the one, its compassion ; you want someone, its desire, lust or perhaps need, not love. So how would you define love? How do you get to know you love someone? Or is love some sort of a bondage? Does love demand faithfulness to the extent of spending your life on the whole with an individual? Can't you fall in love with two persons simultaneously? Just because you see some one other than the one who knows you love the one, would it mean you don't love the former anymore? Is love all about compatibility? Or is it the complementary nature that defines a 'successful love'?
Countless questions, and only a few to answer. Probably I should end up getting answers to my questions, as they are now projected. I would prefer falling in love, though.
Wait! Before you start thinking the mental state I was in before putting my thoughts to pen and paper, just a reminder- Its not the end; and I am not in LOVE. (At least now things should turn around; I am still waiting!!! )
