Nostalgia is a horrible place to be in. It is a drug that caresses softly but scrapes to the depth of my inner solitude - the everlasting sadness that only a lonely man can understand. In a world, filled with the dreams of millions and in houses the lights burn bright and yellow, I can feel lives are being shared. And though the sharing may at times be hard they may as well at times be just as soothing. From my silent perch I can but only guess about the magnitude of their feelings and while I may stare from my darkness I cannot, through all my imaginations recreate the reality of an embrace. Those that are perhaps hurt by someone have had more in-touch with the world than I, for I am far removed from the tortures of sharing but such abandonment renders me a guest. Or perhaps just a floating feather, aimless and no longer serving its purpose, just roaming. From the corners of diners, I watch the other tables and am no longer disgusted by others' company. It isn't that I miss it; I simply cannot miss it for I have never had it. I can't curse them for I know not what it is that they have and just the same, I can't feel happy for them. As my solitary steps take me back to my world of my unquestioned whims, I am lost once again in an abstract. That this is my reality but what can it be if it is never shared. If my words fall only into an abyss of silence, where my logic can never contradict me, where my ways are forever straight - it is just me in front of a wall. What life?

God - has no gender in the normal sense, but to facilitate communication God is given a gender. God here is stated as He but can be interchanged easily without controversy with a She.
To understand God, one has to first reign him in to the limits of a context. There are many types of God, and hence, any discussion of him must first establish the type.
There is the Abrahamic God - omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. as described by the Judeo/Christian/Islamic books of faith.
There is also Hindu God - a pantheistic form where everything is God, and yet there is one above all known simply as the creator - creator of creations.
It is more challenging to describe the Hindu God, since the characteristics are not clearly laid out. Although there is the Creator, there are many other Gods. So what sets the creator apart from the other Gods? The creator God does not necessarily create the other Gods but on the other hand, he does create everything. Then perhaps, the creator God is no different from the other Gods or, to put it differently, the other Gods are no different from the creator God. Yet, if there is no difference then how are they presented as different?
It could be argued that perhaps the title "Hindu God" itself is inappropriate. For example, if there is a religion A with a God X of type G and there is a religion B with a God Y of type R, where G and R are mutually exclusive of each other, it would not make sense to combine both A and B to form religion C which has a God Z that brings into union X and Y, since the types of X and Y cannot be brought into the same set. "Hindu God", it seems, aims to create a set of gods that are of different type which ends up complicating the term with endless contradictions. If one said "God" is everything claimed by Judeo/Christian/Islamic books of faith as well as everything claimed by Hindu religious literature we have a concept that can't even be comprehended because Abrahamic God and Hindu God are very different, to say that they are the same is to deny everything about either of those Gods. Hence, it could be argued that when speaking of Hindu God, we are engaging in something very similar. The problem concerning "Hindu God", however, is that the boundaries between the religions is so blurred that we cannot clearly delineate where one ends and the other has begun. This has resulted in a make-shift hierarchical structure for Gods, where Creator God is at the peak. Yet, even in the hierarchical structure we find that all Gods are equally important. For example, with the Creator God at the peak there are two other Gods who share his level of importance. Then, there is a God who is worshiped before any other during religious ceremonies but this God is neither the Creator God nor the other two Gods. So either we have a hodge-podge of religions being forced into some semblance of a coherent structure or that these are all different religions that have been mis-interpreted as one by outsiders owing to their many apparent similarities.
If are to sort this out, we would have to lay out all the numerous Gods and look at their individual characteristics. If we did that then we would find that many of them share certain characteristics and perhaps then we can create a general idea of a God but we would still have to respect the hierarchical structure and the complicated relationship they share within that structure. Now, absent a comprehensive single book of faith for Hinduism, this is enormously cumbersome. Perhaps we could find another way to simplify this task.
When studying Hinduism, one is often referred to the Vedas. The Vedas are a compilation of various ancient sanskrit hymns where the nature of the Gods is described. Although, the Vedas call on to different Gods with different names, they maintain the superiority of the Creator God. It would help us to focus on these various descriptions without focusing on the names, for while the names are different the characteristics are not necessarily all too different. By omitting the names we are not trying to deny the presence of various individual Gods but are trying to simply extract the characteristics that are worshiped. The creator God will then remain as the only God and he maybe worshiped in any name.
By this, we ignore the possibility of the other Gods being manifestations of the Creator God, and in doing so we no longer have to pursue the task of discovering just how much of the Creator God is being manifested in the different manifestations. Also, if we claimed them as manifestations we would be forced to address the issue of how the manifestations share the same level of importance in the hierarchical structure since the manifested would certainly be the original and the manifestations a copy of the original. One could argue here that it is possible to not consider the original and copies to exist in temporal succession and that the two could co-exist as one and separate at the same time, especially since we are discussing Gods. But this, in itself, poses a separate challenge which would also have to be resolved. Furthermore, we would also have to justify to what extent are the other Gods are manifestations of the Creator God, i.e. are they absolute manifestations? This leads to further areas of discussions, adding only to the difficulty of the task at hand.
If we are to dilute the task, and focus on the most pertinent aspect then the Creator God must encompass everything of the other Gods but their names. In so doing, we can attempt to reach a type of the Hindu God. It is fair to say here that this type of Hindu God thus attained may not be without controversy, for we are engaging in some significant omissions. To clear the controversies one would once again need to engage in the proper justifications for the omissions and that would invariably lead us back to the questions that we have tried to circumvent.
Hence, we have for ourselves this assumption: If the Hindu God is the Creator God then how do we describe him? By this assumption we are stating that the Hindu God is nothing but the Creator God and that we may use the terms interchangeably. We need make no mention of other Gods but at the same time we cannot comfortably claim that this is re-stating the Hindu Religion as a monotheistic religion. At least, not at this time. It is by this assumption that we may achieve at least some understanding of what a Hindu God is like and then we may gradually expand our field of inquiry to the questions we have circumvented with the aid of this assumption. The assumption merely equates the terms allowing for the discussion to actually begin, it makes no final claims on the religion itself. Neither does it state that the other gods are less important nor does it make any claims about the nature of their manifestations. It also speaks nothing about Incarnations.
To facilitate the task at hand of presenting what a Hindu God is like we have thus made the above assumption.
The Hindu God is certainly an all knowing God. But what is it that the Hindu God knows? As the creator of the everything, the Hindu God knows itself as the source of everything. Yet, things don't always directly emerge from the original source. Some things emerge gradually with intermediary forms. For example, if Thing C is the final thing, we can say that the all knowing God is the source because the God is the creator of everything. But we also know that Thing C came from Thing B which in-turn came from Thing A. The Creator may be the direct source of A but B's direct source is A and C's direct source is B, then how can we claim that God created C? We may argue that the creator created A such that it is within A's nature to create B such that B's nature would be create C, and in so doing the Creator created C directly. However, this does put the creator at some distance from C. The creator need only create A, knowing very well that this would lead to the creation of C but then the creator would not have created C in the same way that the creator created A. In the creation of A, the creator may have been mindful of creating C but the fact remains that C came from B, A and creator whereas A came from the creator himself.
Now, lets take a look at the Creator in a different way. Suppose the creator creates A, B and C directly. This is to say, the creator is personally vested in the direct creation of A, B and C. In that sense we know that the creator wanted to create A, B as well as C. The creator was not just mindful of creating B and C but that he did, indeed, create them. In this way, the creator created A, B and C each in the same way by directly employing his creativity on them. Here, there is no distance between the creator and created.
The first means of creating C points to a passive creator while the latter points to an active creator. So, is the Creator God an active or passive God?

There is this utter meaningless rendering surrounding the world in which I am thrown into. It is, as if, an abyss but there is no sense of depth - just the flightless feeling overwhelming the strength of my knees. If at a turn I am to be defeated and I take to kneeling for a prayer there is no sensation of plight either. It is vast emptiness, an ocean of vacuum in which I find myself. There, it is something - but any lurch towards it results in nothing. Over there, here, there is something here and yet no proximity can lend me within reach. As my skin crawls over me, crumpled and stretched to the limits by this emptiness I find while in my presence I am something; somehow, some way this drop-less ocean defines who I am and what I am doing here. Yet, there is only a premonition of purpose and nothing more. There is just a whiff of something to do and nothing more. There is just hope, and nothing more. No mechanism, no physics by which to make a move - to move clear of this vacuum and to even begin to commence search for solid ground. There is no flag here. And if there is darkness then there maybe light but there is no light here and consequently no darkness either. Although, there is every possibility that I could see something I do not see anything. There is every possibility, my consciousness swears by it, that there maybe someone else here - another breathing body, another body in need of touch - as naked, as lonely and as terrified as me, there is nobody else. I have this nagging suspicion of being tethered but without any oscillation and no tug from the other side of the line. In this world I am, and in this shall this life be.

What matter of it,
if the love has fallen free
what matter of it,
that in disdain i am free
what matter of it,
that hands are all but clean
what matter of it,
what matter of it.

if the substance is no more,
if the being is only a hole,
if the energy has not score,
if the beauty is a bore
what matter of it,
if no face has found me free,
what matter of it,
if solitary is my only tree,
what matter of it,
if earth and rocks are only dreams,
what matter of it,
what matter of it.

if this case forever alone,
if this is forever told,
if this is hitherto known,
if this is forever my own.
what matter of it,
what matter of it.

In the sudden death of saturn,
lay I, this burden and this wishful yearning.
Scorched by the unrelenting sunshine,
may I, with blemishes and undone resolves,
direct authority towards the frenzy
and I, may be of value and truth.

In a world, where politics serves conveniently as a euphemism for lying at the burnt carcass of our morals, one may stand and wonder at the diluted value of politics. But politics is neither the evil nor the savior. Politics merely serves the whims of those who wield it and if they so choose to use it instead of simply lying. But anyone with a distilled vision can decipher that which is truly political and that which is a morally corrupt act of lying. To be political is not to pilfer your opponent's character so as to gain an inch, nor is it to spread wildfires in the dry forests of gossip. Nor am I at the station to properly explore the subject of politics though I can experience it on a daily basis both, in its corrupted as well as pure form. As to what telos shall it be made to serve is clear: it is only properly demonstrated when used to benefit a community. Since constituents of community may differ with the knife which criteria carves it with, the very essence of politics is then rendered contingent. By this notion, necessity of politics can be ruled out but not its effectiveness or its credibility. Yet, it seems as though the current usage of politics aims to establish its necessity of usage - and thus, any attempt to necessitate politics is, by virtue of the essence of politics, the un-politicizing of politics. When politics itself is negated you are left with an obscure form of politics that cannot be conceptualized. It is in this stream of obscurity that politics is then apparent, at times, as a euphemism for lying.

Mine virtues so blazed,
mine terrible so vain,
unheralded thus began,
the howling in rains.
Whosoever may lay barren
may he then reclaim,
for this land may no longer give
to the forgiving man his deeds.

There is no device by which to judge a man. Apart from the man himself and his own measures. Who cheated on who? Did she, indeed, cheat on you? Or are you merely internalizing her deeds? If so, then towards what end?
She has cheated. That is the fact. Hasn't she cheated on herself primarily? Whom did she promise first to keep the marriage? Herself or you? If she has cheated herself, primarily then she must answer her own self prior to answering you. And if she has already answered herself then she need not ever answer you.
Somehow, someway, you let yourself go. You let the root point leave you and you must now try to grasp it again. The point being that a marriage is, afterall, an illusion - it isn't reality. Reality still binds you entirely and absolutely only to yourself. You can never live for another being. You can only live for yourself. Fact being, there is in reality nothing such as selflessness. Crude though this maybe, it is ultimately the reason for something like marriage to exist in the first place. And if marriage exists for it then so does separation, as well as longing. You forgot that you were, despite being married, only living for your own-self. You provided to yourself ideals which seemed to be grand for you. Ideals, such as those of responsibility and provided your ownself a purpose based on those ideals. You accepted the responsibility and the purpose but you negated yourself out of the whole picture. You must realize yourself within that picture again. Who you are is not at all linked to why she cheated on you. She cheated only on herself and could not have possibly cheated on you. For she too exists only for herself. The responsibility which you accepted, she was never obliged to also accept. You had wanted that. Every crude law of society expected her to, but in reality there was nothing that could have ever compelled her to do so. Nothing, except her own damned self. And she has left you, for another. You saw his face too. We have both seen his face. You, and absolutely you are entitled to the hatred you feel towards her right now. You are absolutely entitled to that. Yet, you may not mistaken her involvement with another as a cheating on you. You are no where in that picture. Your hatred, hence is also nowhere in that picture. Your hatred is also yours alone, just as your love was.

In evidence is found the virtuous end of all worthy mysteries, for truth then has finally been revealed, but truth which is all together so illusive can be revealed only if it, itself, chooses to reveal itself and therein lies the point of faith. For had faith not played its role, the objective concept of truth would remain forever illusive and it is indeed faith which eventually reveals the truth as itself. In evidence what we discover is the casing of truth but a casing which is not merely superficial, rather a casing which is inherently disclosing the hidden truth. In so far as it is disclosing it is simultaneously not entirely revealing the truth for the truth is still shrouded within layers of scrutiny, even while it is being revealed. Howsoever the unraveling takes place, it only ends at the point of faith when based on all that the evidence reveals the final inference is made so that the truth can, in all of its entirety, be comprehended. Truth never casually lay itself as if when a book rests on a table. If truth is anything it is much more vibrant and to say, lively, than the resting object. The reality of the object, itself, that is the truth of the object, which is only entirely comprehended at the point of faith. For to say that faith is an introduction of an unnecessary category by which to judge evidence is to suggest that truth by itself reveals itself but we simply do not possess the means by which to fully grasp what it is revealing, that is to suggest that if faith is unnecessary then so is truth in its entirety. Yet none so forlorn lover only seeks half truths, when it is in the evidence that the true picture of his betraying beloved comes to the surface. And a lover can bank on that evidence for the lover is never far ashore from the beach of faith, indeed the lover is merely always showering under the waterfall of faith such that to his very brim he is filled with it. And if there is anything that drains him it is merely the acceptance of half truths or truths whose evidence he accepts prematurely. To be a forlorn lover or whether to find better ways to entertain one's identity is not the immediate concern, but it is only by studying such a lover can a thorough examination of truth be undertaken. If he breaths it is because he is in faith and if he cries it is because he is in faith, and if he leaves it is also in faith just as much as he reconciles. For a forlorn lover, faith is the domain in which he regenerates and expires himself. He expends his days in that domain and returns at night to its solitary confines, yet the next day he remains certain of its profitability. The forlorn lover is the purest seeker of truth, of absolute truth, and of evidence so certain that when he finds it he is the first to recognize its potency, whereas passerby notice the evidence but they don't possess the premonition that could've warned them of its potency that isn't too far from exploding any minute. The weeping of the forlorn lover is a symptom of him acting at the point of faith, of him hailing its virtues, of him coming face to face with absolute truth.

The objective of society is alien to the objectivity of an Individual. Thus, a society can progress and it can become better. A society can become something and therefore, it must move outside of itself. It can shed its skin to reveal a new one; and similarly remain the same as before. What we are talking about are the evolution of rights, and that evolution in the context of society is not perpetual.