She once kissed the sun. It was tailored under window glass. Sliced into spots. For her pleasure. Then it was gone. As easily it had risen. Storm wafted in gray smoothness and polished the gold. No, she was not disappointed. Hungering for both storms and sun is like going against the Manicheanistic prospects of life. Life as a social production; life as capital of capitalism and the bickering of socialism. It was as if she was pining for both lover and husband in the person that she craved. They say both cannot coexist; then she remembered the sunspots and trusted even more they could. God shown with nature that it could exist and she questioned why was it feared? The existence of two together. Why was labeling in the apex of discrete and discretion rather than a more luminous and dark pitched Night. Was not night and moon the biggest paradox one could imagine? The softness of a crescent itself defies how a full becomes a curve and a curve becomes a circle. Both complete. Both alarmingly present. And yet this night was called by Hellenistic successors as women’s quarters; relegated and suffocated and brought out no more than a manifestation of infestation and damnation; what contradiction and stupidity is raised. As storm raged and raged and sang and sang in its gusto to swoon clouds and water she felt the fusions of thoughts and emotions. As Night settled in its tones of deep blue, gray and black with highlights of lightnings here and there and petrichor perambulations made its way into the food, hearts and blood of people around with her adjoined she felt a corporeal bliss with an incorporeal promise.
..is like really unpardonably boring; riffed and overused like a salami on toast
and a tea party on steroids — Shakespearean is not real as in illusory Romeo
is but a pawn in the wrath of apples and the apples of wrath; he is a hyphen
not a destination, not a fragment, but a whole, sliced as a dot in the punctuation
of parody — he is the whimsical Hamlet when lovingly not rejecting Ophelia and
the Othello who does not care who pines for Desdemona; he only cares that his
appetite to live life as though cauterized by a swelling pus of romance is dialogic
to the appetites of Juliet for Juliet does not need to hate her other suitors it is more
perilous to love a fastidious “saint” or “sinner” than a normal hybrid; for extremities
are a ruse a Witches’ confidant that they will cure boredom; fair Verona has nothing
to climb, Romeo, if not met with Juliet, may easily go after Rosalind, to see a nun, to make
her love him, ah, but then he is corrupted; rather corrupt the corruptible right? Or so the
Witches and Ariel bicker? Or rather he thought lets see if Rosalind would be envious to know
Juliet, un-nunned, is in his arms and he in her arms and would frolic out of the nunnery and
scram towards him? Did not Hamlet in his indigestion tell Ophelia that a convent is a better
place? Did he not tell her that as a geographic chastity belt? Hmmmph if you ask me he should
have said — here, don’t fuck yet I am gonna make out with this madness bitch and then come
and we can suffer my incestuous or non-incest overtones together on some place else — no need
to defile her body with chastity and you go around fucking madness like some cheap worn night-lady
hmmmp yeah you hyphenated prick you stuck up and suck on Romeo’s window breaks; everyone
is bored in Shakespeare’s world; from Lear to Portia to Shylock to Juliet to Ophelia to Bassanio (the prick)
everyone wants out. Hmm, kinda think of it. Maybe it was Shakespeare saying — I am bored, Oh God, get me out
of this fucking theatre business too…▬
you tell me I stink with a beautiful tongue
your caramel saliva drips like a wasted candy
on some pavement of social disorder;
and you tell me I am picturesque shame;
colour coded in your coordinated flux of things that you’ll never do
like writing on a script on how you felt and how you feel
and to tell me to join the decipherable madness
of learning mute by viper, rattle -snake tongue
that shakes and shudders in an orgasmic fathom
taped to castration; sensor shun and censorship
are sometimes dining on the same plates
and you say I am a beetle and a mouse meant to be eaten
by an enormous snake known as public decency
I do not espouse freedom that entails minimization
nor do I understand how censoring my moods
erects a value system and says that publicity
is the hidden brood of licentiousness;
am I a fabulist wrought iron clad in bikinis and microtinis
and boxers and briefs and shame to me!
For what reason may I profess can you confess to shame me?
there is a fake piety that appears as much not needed piety
prosaic and dry tongued in its passionate speech
and poetic in its incineration that make Farenheit and Celsius go cheek to cheek
to get checked for the STDs that personal hatred triggers
then you want grass gutted lawns
and all lakeside traveling and the concrete world
has not taught you a definition of unfairness?
have your glass slipper not cracked while the stoning of you windows
your ball and your patience all came to a thunderous appaluse
how your defeat was given an orgy and your victories bedridden
and you say beware the laughing and the laughs; has living away
from the wiry, weary edges of revelations made you any less comical?
your life a laugh they translated and your breadth a joke they thought
and you are worried about laughs; laughs are a pllague of death if
made to be as comical as ethics of war where a queen sizzles under
the brevity of drones. Don’t come with a kiss that enables a fist
make a fist and smash your Wall and build a ladder to meet me
I wanted to meet you. I badly did. At some points. As slivers of yellow
as the storm day proceeds but this sliver does not light you
I love the storm too but you decidedly needle-injected the vortex
the nullified eye of the storm. Happily pleasant as the deluge drowns you.
I was not meant to shame you, You have simply shamed yourself.▬
Osho, I Love You No More. | Gaysi.
I did not read Osho before. I know very less of the guy. But yeah he is not really a guy who likes homosexuality. But I understand his reasons. The guy does not hate homosexuals but neither is he really a proponent of it which I understand totally. Yet, of course a lot of people hate this fact about him. I wondered why exactly. It’s not really homophobic if you are not really a proponent of gay culture. Maybe, there is a reason? If he is gay bashing severely I would obviously dislike that.
To me personally, there are many propagandist stuff related to gay culture and even straight culture that I do not really support. I am not a proponent of those cultures. I find them glittery and really misleading so that is why I do not like traditional romances, romance literature much as in Mills and Boons and all those and also not a LGBTQ supporter.
So my comment to this article was this:
I am not a proponent for LGBTQ nor am I a homophobe nor am I a great fan or fan or anything of Osho’s. I recently bought his books to see what he is about. I will say in some ways he is right. When I first read gay literature, and even now I like yaoi genre in Japanese anime a lot, I think my ideas had been a bit different. Now, they have evolved a bit more and I say most notions of homosexuality and even heterosexuality are propagandist. A bisexual person I once talked to and even Nivedita Menon had very different ideas of being “queer” which is not at all persistent with traditional, liberal ways of looking at queer people, Firstly, queerness is not only a phenomenon related to a person’s attraction towards same-sex people pr love of same-sex people. It is a multitude of different feelings, ideas and experiences. Menon and that person actually agreed with this (that is why the person being bisexual or more gay if I am correct did not support LGBTQ).
Heterosexuality is not only about child rearing and giving birth and all those things and so when Osho says that homosexual relationships are more understanding between men but women will never truly love another as they know each other too much I was like “ok, that sounds a bit weird as in a bit incomplete”. I know that relationships between different genders and sexes is necessary and that only polarizing it as sexual and nonsexual is both a problem of homosexuality and heterosexuality. I think that is why I agree with him to that extent that there are manufactured ways of looking at sexualities and that if there is a heteronormative there is also a homo-normative. I see it in the easy uses of the word “feminine” and “masculine” and what not. A free thinker will not easily use words like that. Remember we are always living a dichotomous world and that for some people being gay may be a stage of attraction that comes and goes and not really what they want. But our binary system has forced people in sets. I think Osho also mistaken when he says that man and women are always in turmoil and can never be friends and that creates mystery and misunderstanding to a good — he is right about that but not fully. Sometimes the best understanding and love you get from who you call the opposite sex and it may not entail sexual intercourse and childbirth. So, yes, we must look at these with an open mind. I think at times that a “monastery”, “army” or even “hostel” is more about an enivironment that is akin to that. Like a clinic can even be a school. Clubs can be akin to brothels if they systematically encourage you to do things in a similar way. Like in some clubs how date rape is so exercised because the conditions are so simulated that you are in a brothel and these men and women are your brothelites and you may do with them as you please and unfortunately they you as well. Yes, Osho should have been more articulate in his ideas. I can’t fully talk about sexualities here also. It’s brevity destroys his witty soul.