Awaiting Life

The Saddest Part of Life is We are Still Alive

Rambles Post New Entry


view:  full / summary

Teaching Blues

Posted by Krishna KBS on April 20, 2015 at 2:25 PM Comments comments (0)

Sometimes I wonder...Now, don't get heckled by the beginning; I don't mean to weary you with the wonders of the world or wander without getting to the wonder that I am wondering about.

Heck!

I frankly seem to be the one that is heckled...but anyway...

As I was saying, sometimes I wonder is it worth teaching?

Now, you may ask: Do I wonder if it is worth teaching a particular subject; or teaching a particular class; or teaching as a profession; or teaching in a holistic sense?

Well, to tell the truth, I have no clue.

SIlly, right?

Well, I will tell you my story and then probably some good Samaritan or the other will be able to help me out.

Does that sound too ambitious?

But then, I told you I am a teacher; and teachers are an ambitious lot. Call it occupational hazard, if you so desire; as we are forced to hope (Or do I mean belive? Or should I say pray?) that the students understand what we are saying, and (Please don't laugh) remember, and (Now! Now! I know it is ridiculous, but do have pity. Please!) appreciate via learning (Or vice-versa. After all, it doesn't matter. Either way, it's never going to happen, right?)

Anyway, as I was saying: I teach a batch of no-gooders.

No, I guess I am being too judgemental and emotional, and, dare I say, probably (Just a slight probability, but it exists), unjust(?)

You might wonder why I think so. But well, what one person considers as no-good might be great for another.

Don't believe me?

Then take the example of shit. Yes, I mean shit. Pure shit. No, not dung. If it is cattle's, it would be called dung, and dung is useful. But then, you might say, human shit is also useful -- as fertilizer, and hence, in the production of food.(For more details check this link: http://www.dailytech.com/Japanese+Make+Delicious+Nourishing+Steaks+From+Human+Feces/article21932.htm). So, what about dog shit?  Even that is useful, as pointed out by a learned firend (https://fatunclecheapo.wordpress.com/tag/shit/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">https://fatunclecheapo.wordpress.com/tag/shit/)

So, as I was saying, while shit is excreta, and hence, common sense says that it is waste, useless, and worth ejecting; other creatures in our universe might find it useful.

Wonder, right?

Now, yes, that is a wonder.

But why this shit metaphor?

I thought I was speaking of teaching someone....

Who? I wonder.

Anyway, there goes the bell; and I have to rush off now.

Where, you ak: Of course, to teach.

Who?: Well, you know, I don't want to go back to those metaphors.

No, not again!

Pointless Existence or Existential Point?

Posted by Krishna KBS on April 17, 2012 at 1:05 AM Comments comments (1)

Sometimes I just wonder why we carry on doing what we are doing. Whether it is being in a profession orin a relationship or plain carrying on with our lives -- meaningless as they are.

What makes me wonder all the more is that we carry on doing things that we do not like to do. We carry on doing things such as going to an office which does not appeal to us or staying in a relationship that stfiles us or studying for a career that we loathe.

Why do we do these unreasonable things?

Along with these things that have far-reaching impact, most of our everyday decisions and most of our daily actions seem to be governed by pointlessness. Yes, pointlessness might extend to simple and seemingly silly things like going to a movie when we do not feel like it, or switching off the light when we do not want to, eating when we are not hungry.

Of course, these are trivial examples. However, that is the point. We do not have a say sometimes in even trivial things; so, as for the more serious stuff we do not need to even think -- as someone else will have thought about what we should do, and to not agree with them would just lead to an argument. A pointless argument, if I may say so.

All this result in our life seem like a pointless existence.

But, why? Why do we not have a say in most of the things that concern us? And more importantly. why do we carry on doing pointless things?

These questions, though apparently unconnected, have this in common: They have a lot to do with who our peers are. Most of the pointless things that we do, which result in making our life seem meaningless, are due to peer pressure. It is due to this pressure students indulge in mindless hooliganism or rebellion, middle-aged idiots start having itches, and housewives watch mind-numbing serials.

Yes, a few exceptions are present, such as people tend to act in a pointless and meaningless manner on their own volition. For instance, some might just carry on going to the same supermarket despite being cheated everytime, irrespective of there being no peer pressure to force them to do so. This is just inertia or force of habit.

So, habit and peer pressure make us do things that we would not do -- if  we think logically.

Now, the question arises as to why do we give in to peer pressure of habit?

Are we weak? Can't we rebel?

The answer, if we are honest, is bitter: No, we cannot rebel against peer pressure and/or habit.

Why?

Frankly, that is a no-brainer. We cannot rebel against peer pressure and/or habit as our very identity is dependant on them.

Confused?

Well, it is simple, actually. People are known by the company they keep, and to distinguish between people in a group their eccentricities do help. Worse, without these eccentricities and groups, people are lost and suffer from identity crisis.

So, the pointless of our current existence is due to our striving to make an existential point.

Sad? Well, yes. But true, nonetheless.

Is life a gift?

Posted by Krishna KBS on November 28, 2011 at 3:15 AM Comments comments (0)

Is it?

I keep hearing from various people on a daily, nay! hourly basis that life is a gift, and that we should be careful of what we do. According to this thesis, --- and I'm not saying outright that the thesis is stupid or otherwise....right now --- life is God's gift, and human life is the pinnacle of existence.

Pinncale of existence? Really?

However, before getting caught in that particular mire, here's a bigger one: People along with lecturing on how we should behave, also tell that that we should behave in a a certain way, which would glorify our existence, and result in our ending up as wonderful specimens of life. Sounds weird? But well, they do have their reasons. You see they believe that life is good, as it is God's gift.

Hell!

Put concisely, what they mean is, and I'm guessing here: We shouldn't criticise life because it is God's gift, and as it is God's gift, it is good, and as it is good, there is nothing to criticise. 

Nowif there are circular arguments, that is one! Or do I mean something else altogether?

However that might be, I  have a small issue with the statement that life is good. Yes, with the statement "life is good," not with the statement "life is a gift."

Ah! Why?

Well, it's a long story...

No, actually a short one. But, I guess, it would make more sense a few lines later.

As for life is good, I cannot help wondering why people pray if life is good.

They do, don't they? 

But why?

If life is good, they shouldn't. Right? Stands to reason, doesn't it?

People pray not because they are happy with their existence, but because they want something. People pray because they have desires. Otherwise, they would becomes Buddha or Boddhisatva (if that's the spelling), and attain Moksha -- whatever that means.

Cross that. No, No! people don't hope to attain Moksha. They have too many desires that they need to satisy before that. Moreover, any bugger who desires Moksha, can't be termed as someone deserving Moksha. A Catch-22 situation, if there is one.

Confusing? It's quite simple...but will explain it in a different post.

Anyway, as mentioned earlier, we remember God when we are in pain. A quick count of the number of times we say  "Thank God" and "Oh! God" is revelatory. Yes, one isn't supposed to take the lord's name in vain; but if that is the only way people do remember Him, then what can the poor lord say, but "So Be It!"

Don't you agree?

So, by necessity God would see to it that life isn't good, as if it it is good, no one would remember Him. I guess that seems to make him seem petty; but heck, can anyone say with any sort of conviction that isn't the case?

The old timers, I strongly believe, got it right. Jehovah or Indra or Ra, call Him by any name, is a true representation of God. A vengeful, petty, jealous, and all-powerful God who has to be mollified daily.

So, how come we don't pray to these gods these days?

When you wonder, it is pretty simple.

Such qualities -- vengeful, petty, jealous -- wouldn't make us love Him, would they? So, God, or rather the representation of God evolved to such an extent that we now have a God who is just a synonym of Love and More Love. 

However, that representation doesn't seem believable in the light of our lives. Does it?

So, we create another story, another myth --- that life is good. Hell! It is so obviously untrue that we generally don't even try to disprove this myth. Everyone knows that life isn't good. Otherwise why do even religious texts ask one to aim for Moksha, and by that work themselves into a corner?

They do, don't they?

However, we need to forget that life isn't good, as it becomes very difficult to continue living if we acknowledge the fact that life isn't good.

That doesn't mean that life isn't a gift. Of course, it is. Otherwise humans would be able to create life from nothing. Even cloning needs DNA, or in other words "LIFE."

However, that doesn't necessarily make it good. Does it?

All this shows that Life is a gift; but it isn't good.

Now wonder the old timers also say that Never look a gift horse in the mouth!

Love & Marriage: Are they Antonyms?

Posted by Krishna KBS on February 15, 2008 at 9:42 AM Comments comments (3)

It's been a while since I posted anything. Almost a year.
I can say that I have been busy, and hence did not find the time to do it. But I would be lying.
So, does it mean I was lazy?
Well, frankly -- the answer is 'yes' and 'no'.
It's not just I was lazy -- though I do admit that I was -- but also the fact that there was not anything about which I felt strongly, and anything that I felt on which I could come up with something new and original to say.
And well, who wants to read something that has already been said a zillion times? I don't..and guess no one does. After all, there is only one person that I can use as a guide as to how others feel about things, right?
And if I don't want to read something, am I right in writing it? Gee! That would make me something like a hack writer, who is paid by the word, and has to write something whether he/she wants to or not.

Anyway, the reason am posting this is that my sister's wedding is round the corner, and that made me think about, well, among other things, about marriage itself.
I don't know if a person can speak about marriage without being married -- like I am; but well, guess you only think about things and wonder about them when you don't have them.
I mean most of us think how it is to be a celebrity. Am sure Sachin Tendulkar and Micheal Jackson and Mike Tyson and Diego Maradona never have to think about it.

Analogies aside, what do we think of when we speak of marriages? Guess the celebration or the festivities associated with it. But is that all?
I don't know.
For me, festivities are for things that need to be celebrated, for things that make us happy, joyful, and so on.
I don't mean that marriages don't make people happy. Probably they do.

But the important thing to remember is that the two persons who are getting married should be happy. But is that always the case?
More often than not we come across unhappy marriages. A question that we need to ask ourselves is "Why?"
Come on! There must be a reason for it, right?

I remember in my last blog I said that happiness is achieved by compromise. So, is it true also in the case of relationships? And marriage, in particular?

I don't know. I think a marriage that is built on the notion of compromise is one of convenience -- and though marriages of convenience more often than not work out, and work out well, there still remains an iota of doubt in at least one person's mind if the other is just biding his/her time. And further a marriage of convenience hardly ever is one of love, and that makes love and marriage antonyms.
Not an ideal situation, surely.

But then life is full of situations where to think about the 'ideal' is not just impractical but also foolish.

However, for once, let us do so! I mean, ideal worlds don't exist, but that didn't stop writers like Plato, and More, and guess many more, to come up with their versions of Utopia. And unless we think of an ideal situation, we don't and we can't ever hope to reach a state where we can aim for it and hopefully achieve it, right?
For instance, the Indian cricket team keeps on building a team for the next world cup with the hope of winning it. It's another matter that they fail more often than not. But that doesn't stop them, does it?
So, well...

OK...enough of digressions.
What is an ideal marriage?
And what are the ingredients of a happy marriage?

The answer is more straight-forward than I thought it was when I started. 'Love'!!

Quite simply, love is the ingredient that is required for a marriage -- heck! for that matter, any relationship to work.
Any relationship -- be it father-son, mother-daughter, brother-sister, and even amongst friends, love is the all-important ingredient.
Which brings us tot the question: What is love?

That's a tough one, I guess -- and would need a whole new blog to answer in detail.
However, let me come up with a succinct answer -- albeit a cheesy one.
Erich Segal in his cult novel, Love Story proclaims that "Love means never having to say sorry".
I don't know what he meant by that. I hope he didn't mean that you can take the other person for granted; as by not maintaining common decency and courtesy we run the risk of doing just that.
But anyway, it is a good definition for starters, and let's try to build with that, rather than commenting on it. OK?

So, where does that leave us?
Love = No Sorry

So, what is meant by "No Sorry"?
Guess it implies (and incorporates) never doing anything that needs a "sorry" to be said. In other words, love means not hurting the other person.
So, we come up with an altogether new formula:
Love = No Hurt

What should we do to not hurt the other person?
The first thing, I would say, that one needs to do to stop hurting another, is understand them, and accept them for what they are, and finally never try to change them.
I mean, if you love someone, it is because of what he/she is. And that includes their family, their habits, their behavioral traits, and so on.
So, why should one anyway want to change a person they love?
Doesn't make sense, does it?

Now, having got the meaning of love out of the way (And trust me, it was quite a difficult question that I answered there. Needed lots of soul searching and what not!!), let us get back to the original question.
Don't tell me you forgot what the original question is. Have you?

Marriage. Happy Marriage. And the ingredients of a happy marriage.

Love is one of the ingredients. But then, as we noticed, love is a necessary ingredient for every relationship. Marriage is different; or should be different.
After all, it's the 'till death do us part' thing, and a necessary yoking together of different cultures and mindsets!!

So, what is it that is needed in marriage that is not needed in other relationships?
The answer depends on what we expect of a relationship.
Well, this might sound like stuff that should be restricted to the "Adults Only" category, but heck, in this age of the internet and free knowledge distribution (or is it dissipation?), does it really matter? I don't think so.

Anyway, what is it that distinguishes marriages from other relationships?
Well, there are by-products of this relationship. Probably it is not something that sounds like a wonderful thing to say, and am sure, most of you would kick me for saying so -- but hey! kids are by-products of marriage.
I never heard of a marriage that occurred because the couple wanted children. And if any couple ever married for children, best of luck to them; but am not really sure that is an ideal situation to be in.
I mean, yes, the destination is important, but only when you are traveling.
In life, it helps to keep a perspective, and try and enjoy the journey as much as the destination. If we look forward to the destination too much, we might end up never completing the journey.
Confusing?
Well, just replace 'destination' with 'ends', and 'journey' with 'means'.
Now, does that make sense?

No?
Well, let us give it another try; shall we?
Replace 'destination' with 'kids', and 'journey' with 'marriage'.

Got it?
NO?!!!
Well, guess I can't do anything, except say that you need to read this after you have grown up a bit.

Anyway, now realizing that marriage is different from other relationships in the sense that there is a by-product called children that comes out of it, the next question that needs to be posed, is how does this make marriage different?
The answer is pretty simple.
What is it that we need to do to have children?
Hope this doesn't make you blush or cringe: but frankly, as grownups we can say the word, I guess. Right?
Well, then, Sex.
Unless, of course, you are thinking about artificial insemination, test tube babies, and cloning, and what not. In which case, I may as well point out that none of them need a relationship, leave alone marriage. So, well..

Now, sex needs passion.
Of course, sex does not always lead to children, and all happy marriages do not have children. But as I pointed out earlier, kids are a by-product. But the passion is what I want to highlight, and underline, and stress upon.
For a happy marriage passion is a necessity.
Of course, am using 'passion' as a synonym for 'sex'..as somehow, am not really comfortable using the other word so many times. Perhaps understandably. What say?

That brings us to the end of the blog..and guess you have been looking forward to it for quite sometime now. Hope you are not. But hey! It was quite lengthy, and I know you have such a lot to say, that you wanted to get to the end, and to the comments section.

So, let me finish the blog, with a pithy summing up of the article (as feel that you might have lost the thread of what I was saying in such a long article.):

Happy Marriage = Love + Passion.

Happiness = ??

Posted by Krishna KBS on March 2, 2007 at 11:22 AM Comments comments (5)

What is happiness?
Is anyone ever happy?
Does happiness spring from being lucky?
And, before we forget, what is meant by 'being lucky'?
Is it something like achieving things without deserving them? (But let's not discuss about luck here -- That's too unlucky!!).

Too many, too many questions --- but no answers!!
Or there are answers, but are they satisfactory? Will they make everyone happy??

Happy... happiness...Which brings us to our original query -- "Happiness = ??"

Though this is a query that doesn't have an answer at the best of times, we -- everyone of us -- has tried to figure out an answer, to find a solution to problems.
Even Buddha did.
I mean, he went out on a limb trying to answer what is meant by sorrow, and what causes it, and how to avoid it, and is it possible to avoid it.
But then aren't sorrow and happiness two sides of the same coin??

Anyway, Buddha doesn't give us an answer.
He says that sorrow is caused by desire, and by following some guidebook of rules -- eight of them, in fact, we can avoid this. However, he doesn't stop there, and goes on to talk about rebirth and what-not rot.

Of course, I have nothing against Buddha -- or Gautama, or Siddhartha, or whatever.
I think, and well, I know that isn't saying much -- whatever Descartes might say to that -- but actually, I do think that Buddha is one of the more accessible and more understandable religious figures -- or to be more precise, thinkers.
When we come to think of it, it does make sense -- I mean not the philosophy, but Buddha talking about rebirth and linking it to sorrow. In other words, Buddha was plainly trying to give an explanation that would seemingly be satisfactory, and at the same time escape from explaining anything.
Well! he had to do that!!
After all, that is the only way he could escape censure for deserting his wife and son. Buddha can always turn around and say that it is due to fate, rebirth, destiny. And that sorrow is caused by actions of the past, and he was just doing something that was fated.
Talk about Holy Crap!!

These paragraphs might give an impression that am being blashphemous. I am sorry if I am hurting some feelings -- inadverently everyone does. And probably it is fated!!
But on a serious note, am just trying to understand the machinations of Buddha's mind. Trying to understand him as a human being, and not as a deity.
But then if that isn't blashphemy, wonder what is?!!


However, coming to the original debate -- Happiness.
Well, happiness is being satisfied, is an answer that pleases most people.
But the immediate query to such a statement would be: "What is Satisfaction?"

Satisfaction has two meanings -- broadly speaking.
1. Getting what we desire means being satisfied.
2. Accepting what we get means being satisfied.

The second definition obviously means that we have to compromise. I find this the more interesting and the more satisfying of the two definitions. (By the way, just realized that am using the word 'satisfaction' too many times. But then I amn't satisfied unless I use it!) I will explain in a moment why I think so.
Before I do that, however, let's look at the first one, and debate it.

Are we satisfied if our desires are fulfilled?
I don't know.
At the same time, I don't think so. I don't think that realization of a desire gives satisfaction. Going back to Buddha -- he says that desire begets desire. That is true. Ask any economist!! He will say the same thing.
I mean, you desire a plot of land. The desire is fulfilled. You then desire a house -- or worse/better a mansion. Your desire is fulfilled. You then desire a car, a copter, a lake, a fleet of cars,.... God! Desire is endless.
It's never fulfilled. And till all these desires are fulfilled, one can't be happy. However, all desires can't be satisfied.
Even Sachin Tendulkar and Sonia Gandhi and Bill Gates have desires that are unfulfilled. And compared to them, we have lot more unfulfilled desires; simply, if for nothing else, because of monetary concerns/reasons.
Hence, satisfaction of desires does not guarantee happiness. Even if we feel happy on quenching our desire, it is momentary.

Now, the second definition.
Happiness means being satisfied with what we get.
The definition implies that happiness is got by making compromises. Well, frankly speaking, compromises don't give happiness.
However, if we achieve peace with ourselves, with the compromises, we might -- there is still no guarantee -- we might be happy.
But this happiness doesn't signify joy or celebration.
It's more like we realize that we can't and won't get somethings, and trying to console ourselves.
At the same time, if and when we achieve this peace, we achieve a sense of tranquility.
Achieving something doesn't make us lose our heads in celebration, and losing something doesn't hurt.
We realize that such is life.
Life is a compromise.
And happiness results from our realizing that ... and assimilating that in our system, and applying it sub-consciously to everything that we come across in our daily lives.

Yes, it sounds pathetic!
I mean, the definition: Compromise = Happiness.

But then isn't life pathetic?








Gods must be Cozy

Posted by Krishna KBS on February 24, 2007 at 9:54 AM Comments comments (1)

It is fashionable to say that the gods are crazy..
Or should I say Gods? Heck! Does it matter?
I dont know...And frankly, dont care.

If there is a god -- which is a bit hypothetical -- he/she/it/whatever shouldnt mind if people dont give them too much respect and fear. As gods should be kind and concerned.
But are gods kind? Are they concerened about what happens to us?

Of course, we cant be sure that gods ought to be kind and concerned. After all, who has seen god.
Has anyone seen the god? Or even a god?

Gods and ghosts only seem to be seen and experienced by others...by friends' friends.
It never happens to the person in question.
What does that prove? -- If it proves anything.
Another difficult question...that doesnt have an answer.

But then isnt life like that?
The questions that really matter dont have answers.
I mean, what happens to us after death? No one knows. No one seems to want to answer that.
People say that we will be reborn and all that. And also that the pains and sufferings that we undergo and the few pleasures that we have in the present life (assuming that we have a past life and a future life) are a reason of our doings in our previous birth.
What holy crap!!
If there is a previous birth, and our sufferings are because of that, then isnt it logical and reasonable to assume that we should have some memory of this -- if not for anything else, at least to assure ourselves that we arent committing the same crimes and the same mistakes?
But then, can we expect gods to be logical?
And can we expect myth to be reasonable?
Because rebirth is a myth. Nothing but a myth.
Only old men, who are supposedly well-learned talk about rebirths. I havent met many young people who talk about rebirth or look forward to being born again. Does this mean that old people just wish that their ambitions and goals that they didnt achieve in this life, and the pleasures that are denied them in this life, would be probably and hopefully set right in the next life, as they realize that they cant achieve them in the little time that is left to them to live?
Who knows.
Probably god does.

That brings us to the original question: Do gods exist?
If gods exist, why dont they help us when we are in trouble?

There is a scene in a Telugu movie that I watched when I was a kid, and which has always stayed with me.
The scene shows the protagonist abusing an idol of god and trying to destroy it. A saint comes that way and questions his actions. The protagonist replies that god is useless and doesnt help; and as he had made that idol himself, he has every right to destroy it. The saint smiles and tells him that similarly gods too might be playing with humans -- who are gods' toys.

The scene makes sense up to a point.
Its like what Shakespeare has said in King Lear:
"Like flies to wanton boys, we are to the gods; they kill us for kicks."
Am sure that I got the quote wrong. But does it really matter? Everyone knows the line.

However, there is a crucial difference between the scene in the movie and the quote, which, by the way, is a favorite of Thomas Hardy: The idol was created by the protagonist, whereas flies arent created by them.
This difference suggests that Shakespeare doesnt think that god created humans, but still plays with them, as gods are stronger/mightier.

Anyway, does it really make a difference about whether god created man or man created god?

If god exists he/she/it/whatever should appear. Should help. Should be accessible.
Otherwise, it only shows that gods are too cozy, and arent bothered if humans and other living creatures' lives are screwed up.






The Art of Dying: Why do we live?

Posted by Krishna KBS on November 13, 2006 at 6:43 AM Comments comments (3)

The following note is actually a reply that I had written yesterday to a post in a website, on a topic that is quite close to my heart. I do not why; but feel like sharing it with you --- Whoever you are..

It is about a topic that I feel strongly about. There are not many things that I feel strongly or passionately about; so, when something of this sort turns up I become ridiculously passionate and emotional.

Is it a good thing to be passionately ridiculous or... well.. ridiculously passionate? I do not know. I will leave you to be the judge....


This is what I had written:


We live not for ourselves, but for others.

We live out of a sense of filial duty, out of responsibility.
We live because we do not know how to die.

Given a choice, most people would love to take the easy way out -- if there is an easy way. Is there? I don't know. Probably no one knows.

But do we have a choice? Life is not about choices; it is about chances. Sounds cliched? But life is a cliche -- the more we tend to make it less of a cliche, the more cliched it becomes. Sounds paradoxical and weird? But then life is full of paradoxes, and .. Well, if life isn't weird-- what is?

Yes, death is welcome; and life can be looked at, and quite probably is, a long and weary wait for death.

Wait! Wait! And Wait! And hopefully, the wait will be worthwhile, and will not take too much time... Not take that much time that we are tired of the waiting, and tired and sickened by the thought of death. As death is romantic, and life is unsexy, only when death is nowhere on the horizon. Once we are old enough (yes, old 'enough' --- not just 'old'), and every cough and sniffle is taken as a hint of death kncoking on the door, I do not think I will, and guess no one will, think that death is welcome.

But that is a long way off, yet. Sadly?

Meanwhile, all one can do is try to enjoy or atleast bear the way we live. After all the way we live is a very good indicator of the way we are going to die -- as we all are; some sooner, some a bit later...but everyone in the end. And that includes you and I --Thankfully? --- Yes, THANKFULLY!


That's it! That is the post. Reading this now, I felt like adding a few more line...regarding hope. After all, a lot of things are said about hope; why not add my bit too?

Yeah, hope keeps us alive. But hope does not keep us from dying; it is a sense of responsibility...however misplaced.

A lot depends

Posted by Krishna KBS on October 20, 2006 at 2:21 PM Comments comments (1)

"Oh! Shit!
Your (face is like a) half-baked potato
I love it. Yes! Need I say?
It is obvious
to everyone
except you, dammit!
Oblivious of me,
Oblivious of love,
Why you live?!!
You piece of.."

He looked at me expectantly, and said 'Isn't that original? Down to earth?'
I badly wanted to retch. Wonder why? Finally managed to mutter 'Yeah, an earthy piece. More like down into the earth..rather than down to earth ..or whatever. By the way, what do you mean by 'down to earth'? Such a phrase exists?'
'Yes, of course'.
I did not bother to answer. Just raised an eyebrow -- like Jeeves, though I am not his butler, or anyone's for that matter. Actually wonder why and how Jeeves managed to work for Wooster, or probably should say how Wooster got Jeeves to work for him. Yes, Wooster has a certain charm, and there are times when I identify with Wooster; though, I am not really sure that I want to share those gory days. Those who know me well enough would know what I am talking about. Or probably not. Who cares??
There is a line in 'Anand' -- the Telugu movie, which says that those who understand us are our friends, and only they matter. Those who do not understand us are not worth thinking about. Good line that. However, cannot help but wonder what Joyce would say to that. Suggests that Joyce would not have any friends.
Thank You. You have a nice smile. Keep Smiling.

Anyway, getting back to the dialogue that I was having with...well, whoever it is does not really matter. And in all likelihood you would not like to know. Now do you want to know?
Well, if you do want to know, let me know.

Enough digression.
To continue with the ...

I asked him: 'Who wrote this?'
He looked at me squarely, and asked 'Why? You aren't laughing, are you? At the poem?' He sounded hurt. I could not believe it. But decided to play it safe.
'No. Of Course Not!' I insisted.
'He wrote this poem..I mean that guy. You know who I mean...'
He went on in this vein for a bit longer, but I decided to spare you. Hope you are not angry with me for doing that. I interrupted him, and asked 'Yes. But tell me, did he?'
'What?'
'Commit Suicide?'
'Well, no..He did not commit suicide. He murdered her.'
'Oh!'
After a somewhat long pause, probably tired by my keeping silent, he asked, 'You are pretty quiet. Affected? Love is stupid, ain't it?'
I let out a long breath. 'Yeah, that's true. Love is stupid.' I paused. He smiled, a bit too complacently for my liking. It was almost like he was saying, 'Didn't I say so?' I did not like it. I completed my sentence, 'but I am not'.







A life less known

Posted by Krishna KBS on October 13, 2006 at 8:54 AM Comments comments (6)

Yes...Life is a misery..a sorrow..an unresolved problem..an unanswered question.
And yes! If it is answered, more the misery...more the sorrow...and more...NEVERMORE!

A life less certain cannot be imagined; as it is not possible. If there is one thing that is certain and true of this life and this world, it is that life is full of uncertainities.

One does not like to accept these things..even think about these issues. However, we are forced. God! for the life of a dog!! Though, don't really know that dogs have a happy life. Do they?

Do they not think? Do they not weep? Do they not cry (or bark, as they do for
everything) when they are hurt?

It is usual for man --- and sorry, for this generalizing, but what to do? That is one of the misfortunes of being human. You want to include others in the misery that you are wallowing in. Cannot help it!! No, Cannot..


Rss_feed