Just remebered what IO had written 6 yrs, back. Now it seems kitschy!
We must read something fully before cocking a snook at places. Moreover rationality comes easily to us sitting at better places. but think of those actually undergoing the trauma in love. Its true that sentimental alcoholism must not be given too much importance, but the thing is if in a society one is not free to chose one's own bride or career what damned use is it to live like a saint or a hero. In west u all cannot feel how much gut is required in rebelling against the society. i feel to undestand the character of devdas one has to be as grey as him. I believe in realism much more than any such idea of heroism. people are sadistic to enjoy such movies much more becz almost every day in India u cannot talk to someone u love becz of numerous constraints. it needs a psychoanalysis and mockery is only superficial. We know that people r not 'black' or 'white' and still decry them as if we ourselves have lived like a saint. jane austen is the antithesis of charlotte bronte. She is slightly contemptuous of bronte's pessimism. but 'meri bimari mansik hi sahi par bimari to hai' funda is good. one must be sympathetic over it. It ll heal more. and i genuinely believe that majority is pessimist and like devdas in one matter or the other. No, no sorry that i ve become idealistic but since i cannot forget my own debacle i dont love the rhetoric in such matters. If u read dostoyesky or even dickens u llsee that their heroes were amongst the sinners, self-seekers, dacoits and the fallen ones. maybe i too try to penetratebehind any debacle and then get exposed to a pristine sentimantilaty, passion, idelaism or emotion. lovers like devdas ve a deceptive laid-back approach towards life that confuses many. they r not exactly suicidal. circumstances simply go out of control. and if v cannot alter the circumstances let us at least leave them in their graves resting in peace.
An article replete with sensitivity first of all is bound to be philosophical in part. At times I fail to comprehend what seperates life and philosophy. I used to think that life is in itself a philosophy. But even when I utter a single plain fact of life like, 'life without a solid objecive is a waste', my father snubs me that I am being philosophical. One cannot extricate oneself totally from philosophy. In the very outset of my shortlived professional life, I had decided to block every single philosophical thought to salvage my practicality, as both are diametrically opposed in nature in this very modern world of ours. But a big confusion ensued since the inception of this resolution.My life became a hodge-podge. Sometimes I mused over my practiclaity and at times I also fought to curb my philosophical monologues. I failed in both. Right now I have lost most of the things from the materialistic point of view. But philosphy is there. Ergo, try as we may, we cannot alienate ourselves from philosophy. That way it is very useful in our lives. Call it 'majboori', call it 'thinking' or whatever, philosophy is our raison' d etre. I ve read Nietsche, Kant, Hegel, Spinoza, Osho, Krishnamurthi and the rest too, to no avail. I still cannot conform myself to any of the philosopher, although Osho is my favourite. Osho differs from the rest because he does not ordain one to become a 'superman' to enjoy life in toto. He simply loves one to 'be' one's original self. I cannot recount all that I loved in his philosophy but few points are there which really need to be mentioned. Whenever I see people mourning over the deceased I fail to empathise and start remebering Osho who says to celebrate death. Yes, we are presented a very morbid picture of death. If it was treated indifferently, just as a happening, we would have feared it less. I will tell you story. A man asked a milk-vendor his name. "Shakespeare' pat came the reply. 'He was the no. 1 writer of the world.' 'For three years every morning I have been delivering milk at your doorstep. Is not it as good as writing a book?" True it is. Why bother about becoming a Shakespeare? There are varied opinions I admit and I know every philosophy is bound to be jeered by many. Why to mind it? The motley lover will enjoy every bit of it. But I bear grudges against philoophy too. Like when one of my friends took me to a meeting in Theosophical Society and I was not in the mood. I left it in the middle and my friend asked me the reason. I retorted that I don't want to become a philosopher. I continued that I want to become a realist and thus Thomas Hardy attracts me more than Ramakrishna Paramhans. Becz I dont ve enough money to sit on Internet(that darned practicality making inroad again!)I will logout. But given a free Internet connection I suppose I can write the whole day in one stretch about philosophy and the next day I may perhaps steal cigarettes from the nearest shop vendor. Plz do not mind my content because I am living a very confused life that vacillates frequently from humor to seriousness and I suppz philosophy addresses more to the latter.

Strange are our thoughts as a function of time!