Is RSS more liberal than BJP on section 377 of IPC?

Whether homosexuality should remain a criminal offense under Section 377 IPC,  RSS Joint General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale had said that sexual preferences are a personal matter and the organization doesn’t hold any view on it.“I don’t think homosexuality should be considered a criminal offense”.
“sexual preferences are private and personal. Why should RSS express its views in a public forum? RSS has no view on that. It is for people to have their way. Personal preference of sex is not discussed in RSS and we don’t even want to discuss that.”  Dattatreya Hosabale
Ram Madhav also reiterated this belief,  “As for Section 377, let us see what stand the government takes on this issue. But I can say this - the penalizing and criminalisation aspects need to be looked into. Whether to call homosexuality a crime and treat it as one in this day and age is questionable.”
But unlike vocal RSS, the Bhartiya Janta Party has maintained his noble silent on this issue, although many in BJP like Arun Jaitley support decriminalization many don’t which is not unlike other parties. Sashi Tharoor was shushed not just by BJP but his own party members.
Does BJP lack any cohesive ideology? What is Integral humanism in BJP anyway?

Is homosexuality objectively and scientifically natural?

"Nature had created sexual organs merely for reproduction and hence naturally they should be used merely for reproduction" I believed that I've grown immune to this sentence, years ago when I started writing about homosexuality I would often get these type of comments from conservatives. I would get agitated easily and ask them to tell, what is so natural about airplane technology and so on (read my earlier ranting here)
Recently I was given the same reason, but the difference was that the person who stated this was pro-LGBT. Needless to say, that person agreed that airplane technology is unnatural but acceptable nonetheless.
The argument put forward was that homosexuality should be accepted because of the free will of individual rather than it being a natural thing. The purpose of sex is the reproduction and homosexual relationship doesn't fulfill this purpose, we have to look into the matter in an objective and scientific way without getting emotional on the issue. Masturbation and contraception are equally unnatural and even though it is unnatural it is accepted as a person is exercising the free will of an individual.
But I have several problems with this stand which I would like to point out here,
Firstly, the argument of homosexuality being unnatural historically is put not to explain the sexual behavior of human under scientific curiosity and there is hardly a question of objectivity but more about that later. That 'Homosexuality is unnatural' was put to dehumanize and demean homosexuals as Deviant or sick people. Using the word 'unnatural' today would still have a negative impact and would not generate acceptance in society.
On the other hand, saying one have free will and one becomes deviant is an ideology that is appropriate for church.
The god does not like homosexuality but gave us free will and due to satanic temptations, some come to like it and hence they are evil is the Christian theology. Homosexuality is a sin, we don't hate sinner who having free will have fallen to Satan's plan but hate the sin which is satanic' this is an age old logic put forward by the conservative.
When the western world became disillusioned with the church, the state and church were separated and so was the people approach to look at things, but it couldn't be said that it cut the chord that instant with the culture, which the church governed and imposed its ideology upon for centuries. They desperately needed a new vocabulary to justify their innate homophobia and invented words like unnatural, Deviant etc. homosexual were not sinner now but diseased and homosexuality was not satanic but sickness. The conservative felt validated by these scientific 'findings"' and quickly adapted to this rational sounding argument.
What was it, if not a mere change of words?
Somehow a person could still accept the homosexual as equal healthy being just because they have free will within this unnatural framework is very surprising, I must congratulate the person, but I doubt many would be able to do the same.
Secondly, In terms of being objective in our approach to discover what is the purpose of sex, I must say this is a futile work. Nature being inanimate, it could not validate any objective reason for purpose of sex which then is given to it by the human being without its consultation subject to human understanding.
Even so within human understanding, an objective approach would want for evidence which would not support the theory that the sex is essentially for reproduction. Throughout history sex has been used for several purposes, expression of love, fulfilling the marital duty, a manipulating tool, an intimidating threat, reproduction, sexual gratification, violence and harassment, spiritual awakening, religious rituals and even as a currency are few examples among many others. Choosing one as the real purpose of sex is oversimplifying the complex nature.
Another way to look into it is to ask whether anything is unnatural at all? The human psyche itself is the product of nature. If natural selection has not eliminated homosexuality should we question the "naturality" of the way human beings are evolved? A better approach to it would be to try to understand how homosexuality has a part to play in human existence which may make us realize it is not the only reproduction that is responsible for our species continuous existence.
A homosexual relationship is real, in terms of existence, I will go back to my original stand if it exists it is natural just because it does not fulfill the expected notion of the purpose of relationship in direct way would not mean it serves no purpose at all. A Scientific approach would mean to look for evidence, and the existence of heterosexual relationship could not discredit the existence of homosexuality. They both exist, they both must have a purpose, in strictly scientific terms of course.
Should homosexual accept the label unnatural even when many negative connotations are involved in it? Do you think there would ever be an objective and scientific response of what is the purpose of sex? Is free will? and individual freedom enough to grant rights to an individual? Let me know what readers responses are to these questions.

To atheists - its not a holy war

When Mansur Al – Hallaj was accused of blasphemy for his dav – e – ana’l – haq, the then caliph or Khalifa-ut-allah, the representative of Allah on earth told him, “My friend, you know I’m also an atheist but unlike you, I don’t go around shouting it”. Mansur then told him, “My lord, I’m nothing but truth”

As it is apparent, Al – Hallaj was not persecuted for his disbelief but because he was not being a hypocrite.

People believe that atheism is a doctrine opposed to religion. This is a completely false belief, not only atheism is a part and parcel of many organized religion, say Jainism but also much atheist organization functions very similar to missionary religions.

Vinayak Damodar Rao Savarkar, the Veer S was a vocal atheist. He used to denounce theism from the podium of Hindu Mahasabha. His Hindutva, an essentially atheistic system would win him admiration from deeply communal people.

The Kayade azam of our beloved neighbor, Md. Ali Jinnah was no Namazi either. What he created is a nightmare for humanity, but nothing more than that. On the other hand, there was Badshah Khan, the panch waqt ka namazi, the epitome of non-violence and secularism.

So why did our fringe elements choose to follow atheists or suited mullahs? How did these atheist nationalist and modern looking Muslims end up heading sectarian trifles?

The answer is simple. These people talked in the same voice of sectarianism notwithstanding their beliefs. So what RSS is full of atheist, it is an integral part of Sanatan Dharma. Why not Muslims accept rioting atheists, aren’t they ‘a quarter’ Muslim saying ‘La illahe’ all the time.

People who are an atheist need to understand that atheism does not make anyone any more rational, humanist or secular than anyone else. It just makes you correct on one simple fact. Period.

It is true that atheists who lead religious group are dangerous. The danger is, most of them are not honest like Veer S but are the modern Caliphs. But even good hearted Atheists are dangerous, if not to themselves, then to society. One thing that they get right, gives them the false belief that they are right about everything. They will get drunk of a social issue, and will always try to be the cause of dharma chakka parivartana, become the messiah, the last Rasool of no Allah. Most of the time they do not have an iota of idea what is going on with the society.

Atheists need to open their mind about how they see the world. It is not an Atheist = rational = irreligion = left = communist equation and just because you have realized the fact of common sense that the creationism is a wonderful fable and nothing more than that, you don’t have to associate yourself to any of these extremes.

Atheist need to make a choice, they could not hold on to communism or left or Buddhism because they are essentially atheistic. You have to see the regression, terrorism, and superstition in them. You have to recognize the progress in capitalism, the logic, and realism in theistic Nyaya and non-sectarianism of bhakti giants.

Atheism is not holy. It does not belong to anyone. No one should own it or sell it. It should not be a community. It is a plain fact. Congratulation if you know that fact and move on to make your life something more than just about this.

When Indra Came Out!

So it was! A queer situation! In a even Queerer time. Indra was tensed, confused, and afraid. He was having this strange feeling!

'Why me?' 'Why not Varuna, or his boyfriend?' 'Why not Rudra or Vishnu?'

Thoughts like these were floating in his mind. He had a reputation. A reputation of Warrior, Brave and Mighty.

'How can these strange feelings develop in a man's heart?' thought Indra.King of devas, Lord of men, Indra is invictus, never lost, then? he was loosing himself.

"These feelings, are they proper for a man?" He said while drinking soma. "I've destroyed so many cities which came in our way, Conquered the unconquered. Even the great Vrita couldn't stand in front of me. This day, I couldn't stand on myself!"

Indra honor was at stake, or as he thought so! They call him Thunder, what will they call him now? These feelings for Yuvanashva's New born, which had erupted like lava from the volcano heart of his, If expressed he will surely loose his status! Indra was afraid, for the first time. He never thought that his great fear is not any enemy,but something within.

"Why me, why nature has chosen me! Nature?" Indra saddened, " How can this be natural? This never happened before! Then why these new strange feelings are born in my heart?"

This indeed was a new thing, but once everything was a new-thing! And what happened in the world this time is also unique. Never before a man gave birth to a baby. Now Yuvanashva did it. But why Indra has to participate in this strangeness.

"This surely is a work of Brahmins, they can bind us to do what they want." thought Indra " But why they will do this? Is this a revenge for killing brahmin Vrita? Or they do this for amusement? Oh you brahmins of earth listen to Brihaspati your fellow brahmin and amuse yourself with materials on earth and not us!"

----------------------------------------

While Indra was having these thoughts, Agni entered,"what happening there?", Indra asked Agni reported,"Yuvanashva came to senses after delivery!" 

"and?"

"Its a boy as said the royal doctor"

"Is he healthy?" 

"Yes and the same inquired the father. 'He is born of a great person my king' saying this entered royal brahmin' He surely is healthy!' 'But hungry', The doctor said.'And we do not have anything to feed a new born', said brahmin, ' If nothing is arranged, we have to feed him with honey''Had he born of a woman', grieved the doctor ' He surely have got his deserved milk"

Agni was experienced reporter beyond any doubt.

-----------------------------------------

Listening all this Indra became uneasy.

"No" He shouted, "Nothing matters now" He was furious like Varuna.

"My feeling are genuine, natural, and not imposed!"Indra then wept like Rudra, sobbing he murmured "I've won territories, haven't I Agni! You people respect me and love me as a King, brave and strong. But i'm week Agni! Surely I'm week!"

Agni shouted, "How dare you say that! We believe in you, your are our brave warrior, our great king. Mighty lord! How dare you question our belief!"

Indra smiled, "You say that only because you are unaware of my feelings!"

"What feelings?", inquired Agni for the first time."Leave it", said Indra, " None of it matters now, let us go to Yuvanashva place!"

and so they left

--------------------------------------------

"Look" Shouted Agni, "They are about to feed boy, stop!"

"who is this?", asked the royal brahmin furiously, "You Agni-deva! How can you come without being ignited (invited)?"

"Sometimes as brahmin myself, I'm self ignited" Answered Agni, further he said "and welcome our lord, Purendra!"

"Welcome lord! what bring you here?" The brahmin doubted.

"Love" replied Indra, turning towards Yuvanashva, lord questioned, " How can you let your child feed like an orphan?"

"I have no choice Lord, I'm not woman enough to produce milk!" excused Yuvanashva. 

"But I'm" Saying this Indra, the epitome of manhood took the child in his hand, and put his fingers into the mouth of the baby, "mama dhati" he said.

The doctor was amazed, "Wonderful Nature, see how baby suckle Indra's hand, No need for water or honey or anything, the lord himself has produced milk! Amazing!"

"Indeed amazing", Said Brahmin, " Just now we have seen King giving birth, and now we see Lord feeding him like mother! Wonderful indeed, even what seemed very rare and strange is, let the men know from now, is surely natural"

Agni said, "I do not get who is more satisfied, the baby or the lord. Look at the face of lord! It is glowing like of Soma."

The Lord Indra was looking at baby as he sucked milk. "This indeed is a great feeling" thought the lord, "I don't know why was i so afraid? This feels good. It doesn't matter what world thinks of me! I'm good the way I'm! The truth is I'm true to myself, self alone is truthful!"

Yuvanashva felt awkward, "Brahmin you called Indra 'like mother', while you used 'father' for me. I gave birth to my baby!"

"So you think mother is sweeter a word than father king?" bahmin asked while Indra came out loud, "Think not this king, I'm surely his mother as I've fed him. You surely is his father as you gave birth to him. But a father too feeds his son and mother too gave birth. I here proclaim that I shall ever be known as the one who suckled his baby, Yuvanashva never be embarrassed by this strange incidences for this birth is divine indeed."

"And hence forward the the baby would be called Mandhatri, Hence his name bear the greatness of the lord, the beneficent and ever loving", said Brahmin.

"Jai ho, Prince Mandhatri whose very birth is devine", hailed doctor, "and jai ho Indra, who like God quenched the thirst of baby. You indeed is Quencher and protector"

"Jai ho, Indra-deva, the lord of the devas, the lord of the men, the brave and mighty, thunder, quencher of thirst, protector and loving and ever beneficent", said the brahmin.

"Jai ho, Indra-deva, the lord of the devas, the lord of the men, the brave and mighty, thunder, quencher of thirst, protector and loving and ever beneficent", hailed everyone except Yuvanashva.

---------------------------------------------

Bhagvan Buddha

"Kamma is a failed theory and nibbana is an unproven hypothesis. These are speculation, there is no speculation of truth. One should relate to these as little as possible. The world is best explained the way its perceptible"

The philosophy often dealt with cosmology, existential and moral issue. Apart from touching the last part to some extent the Buddha remaining his 'arya chuppi' on all others, is one of the greatest philosopher of human history? You got to be kidding me! Can silence create knowledge?
Can you claim that some guy knows the 'theory of relativity', if you yourself do not have knowledge of it beforehand? This is a limited form of knowledge, isn't it applicable to 'unlimited' knowledge? How could Buddha ( Mahavira, Krishna ) be claimed of omniscience when no one else is omniscient! These people just became witty enough to tackle your question (as Mahavira ),  diplomat it with all possible answer ( as Krishna ) or even worst call the question itself 'un-worthy', and maintain there 'arya silence'.

Buddha ji enjoying kheer while all others are drooling! 

Everything happens with chance. The kamma theory is just non-conceivable bakwas. There is possibility that a killer will live a fantastic life. That is why we need law, police, spies and punishments. So the origin of universe is just by chance and probability. If we apply kamma, before existence there was no act, hence no consequences, then this world should never have originated. Even if kamma started acting after origination, then the world should have uniformity, which the world do not have.
We live for joy, pleasure and procreation. To make our life more joyous, pleasurable and happy we should work for it. With work we will get wealth, power and possession  With wealth and all and there rightful injunction we should have pleasure in varied sense With pleasure we achieve satisfaction, the true emancipation not nibbana.
"Will you stop eating wheat because it comes with husk?"
Being indifferent to pleasure and pain only means that one has gone crazy. Not everyone is born asexual buzz kill  Its true that one should not leave pleasure for a promised pleasure in heaven! Then how can we renounce pleasure, love and affection and start living like a stone for something 'nibbana' or liberation?
This 'nibbana' is too like a state of  stone. Then they say that you do not get it right, people get knowledge by sense organs, with perception. These speculation and levels are neither perceptible nor felt! How can someone claim that these senses evolved with nature can not perceive what they do? Is not this like saying 'I can smell with ears, or I can taste with skin'? This condition, level or state you promise is not pleasureful in finite sense how can one be happy in that? Are stones happy? One should avoid joy when it brings more pain or when avoiding it brings more pleasure, but is not he fool who gives away pleasure for some transcendental position. Are not Buddhist, Nirgranth, ascetics and Sanyasies deluded?