On Article 377

Hold My Hands Friend.........

Man Holding Hand

Three is a photo regulated and shared around FB on LGBT pages, it says " Why society prefer Man holding guns than man holding hands." and my Indian friends related with it. `Related' are they blind fold?
Isn't man holing hands a common sight in India,but not in west!
and this is what one foreigner has to say , " Two burly guys saunter down the street, their chest hair exposed, their faces scowling, their muscles bursting out of their one-size-too-small shirts. Everything about their appearance screams ‘I want to kill you with my bare fists and then have sex with lots of women’ – everything, that is, except for the fact that their hands are locked tightly together in an intimate embrace reminiscent of young lovers on the seashore"
In India Male holding man hand is not at all a taboo also unlike in west they are never stigmatized, still western people an their Indian urban ghulams always give creepy theories about why man hold hands in India.
Indian guys are found of holding hands. When western visit they surely put it there blog. It's funny, weird and fascinating according to them. In there culture man do not hold hand until they are romantically involved.
Read this most biased but real post
http://www.stuffindianslike.com/2008/04/170-holding-hands.html

Why the hell Indians hold hand? They ask themselves and many put up this bizarre theory ''because of sexual repression of Indian man, they could not hold hand of girl so hold do best they can'' interesting enough many Indian say that it is in lower society and small cities not in urban and civilized part.  Another theory among Indians themselves (if I dare call them Indian as they are blind folded slave of great west white masters) "they are unaware of stigma" truth may be but this is a screwed up analysis.
Holding hand has nothing to do with sex or sexuality in 'uncivilized' world. It is human nature to hold hand of his friend or relative irrespective of sex/sexuality. Holding hand is about relations. Romantic, bromantic, friends and all not just romance. Holding hand is natural not holding hand is cultural. Naturally man is inclined to hold hand of another person but due to culture one is stigmatized either way.
holding hands are common human behavior nothing to do with sexuality. Establishing this the question like 'why Indian men hold hand' is stupid instead it should be 'why western men do not hold hand?'. Still they and there gandchatu Indian slave have given nonsense theories. 1st theory of sexual repression only seems logical to a fragile impotent mind unable to reproduce his own thoughts. Because even a slight examination of this theory clears that it is based on a screwed up analysis.
To say man hold hands as they can not hold hand of women is evidently wrong. Yes I believe that in traditional Indian society man holding hand of women is despised. But this only strengthen the view that is is 'non holding' of hands which needs speculations not the common natural thing man holding hand or holding hand in general. In India love was a taboo, but if it was only conditional then why boys or child hold hand? Or why married friends hold hand? This theory works on a logic that western society is ideal, natural. Since men holding hand is not common in west or north american they see all straight men hand holding as aberration. Since they do not see man-man intimacy apart from romantic association, they assume that it is common across he world. Well, Men hold hand in many other culture too, in south east Asia,china and in tribal culture where sexual liberalism is high. So this theory is stupid and works on same logic which once dictated man-man sex un natural. The thing is holding hand has nothing to do with sex or sexuality, like child hold hands without any sex/sexuality consideration. Instead not holding hand has deep sex, moral and stigma playing behind.

This theory of sexual repression falls but still the 2nd theory of 'unaware of stigma' by our growling slaves is also a product of blind faith.  Does unaware of stigma means unaware of man to man sex? If so nothing can be far from truth. I hear similar things from fellow gay who say that there parents or forefathers are/were unaware of homosexuality. Are words like gandu, gandwa, gand maru, landura, manahara western? The common form of apology like 'ab gand lega kya' or 'chal ab gand mar le' is found  in west or among  urban civilized Indians? One can in an ask there grandmom about gandu, or dohna or hear about folk lesbo stories. It is not unaware of stigma but absence of it in hand holding. M2m sex is of course taboo but not m2m hand holding because sex is out of context in hand holding in India at least for men.
since both nonsense theory are thrown and it is established that hand holding is human behavior nothing to do with sex and sexuality, the question why men hold hand in India? Is as meaningless as existence of god. Instead the question should be about why men do not hold hand in west? And why men-women not in India? The later's answer is love taboo in India which is slowly vanishing as me can see bf-gf hand in hand and the former's answer is obvious but it is not seen to be lessening, instead it is being imported here in India none other than our 'om namo westernization' group. Although I'm grateful that this new wave of sexual liberty has entered through west. But it also brought up western stereotype and has produced deadly combo of east hypocrisy-west stereotype in urban educated people. I want to hold hand of my friend, boyfriend and brothers and let my sex/sexuality remain out of this as it is today in India. India is changing, sad urban Indian follow anything west as. But is west also ready to change?

                                                                                    Why not hold hands?


Holding hands if so natural then why in west men do not hold hands? and in India why not man-woman hold hands? they say that because men in West are conscious of their sexuality or better to say insecure. the stigma is very much prevalent and no one wants other to think they are gay unless they actually are. This of course has a stereotypical view behind that hand holding is romantic or even erotic. this explains a lot but still something is missing. two girls are seen holding hands and stigma is not strong there.  So something else is also playing here and that is idea of manhood as like possession. Common belief is that gays are not manly or lack muscularity. The men insecurity about his manhood plays vital role here while girls continue to have intimate relationship. two girls hand in hand are not called manly in fact hand holding itself is deemed girly. Hand Holding with assumed association to girls and gay make western men avoid hand holding . The situation in India is different. In India while Men hold hand, Hand holding among man-woman is not liked. This also seems to have something to with romantic assumption of hand holding. But this again is not a complete picture. If in India hand holding was romantic then men hand holding would have been a greater taboo, which it is not. So here an universal myth that 'A man and  a woman can not be friends' is working, also it has been fueled up with the hypocritical eastern mentality which fails to see man-woman relationship apart from blood/sex. In brief, the main reason for not hand holding is it's imagined romantic/ erotic association, and different taboo/dislike of romantic/erotic relationship in different culture is thus reflected in Hand Holding.

The stereotype import

This is really worrying that in modern Indian urban society men holding hands are now a rare sight. It's even despised. The reason for this can be increasing awareness of homosexuality among urban masses, but I do not think so. Girls in India are not unlike for their hand holding. The non-urban area homosexuality is not associated with feminine guys instead with truck drivers and pathans. 'Teri gand mar lunga', 'aa chuppa de', 'aaj chikne ko chodunga', 'chal aaja mar le meri aur age barh', 'ab kya gand maroge?'  like sentences are found among gundas and bhaiyas. Men in Urban India are just Importing western stereotype. That the women still can hold hand while men can not, just like in west proves this. Even mixed with eastern hypocrisy, which helps them to blind fold their thoughts from self evident perceptible truths, they are an interesting hybrid. Once an English entrepreneur (stationed in south east)  said, 'east is very good in copying, good labors but they are unable to produce any original thoughts'. I've no wonder accepting his thoughts as he was seeing our urban, educated and civilized eastern guys. In India, the civil engineers and all just prove his point. BT- brinjal is just another example. We see west developed, so anything in west is seen ideal. We forget to see that development in west is not by Infrastructure or orthodox western culture but it came with, universalism, liberalism and socialism. They are trying there best (the intellectual west) to eliminate the stereotype present in western society, but in educated Indian society there is a tendency to idolize west and import any such cheap thoughts.

The Optimist me

I've a hope, not with our 'om namo westernization' Indians who think nothing in west can go wrong, but from west itself. The society there is growing more secular, socialist and developing a sense of communism and  tolerance. Being in a secular socialist republic nation these are the things I like. Our educated urban thought slave if keep on following their white master will surely come to this too. I just hope that, if eastern hypocrisy do not play then even our urban Indians while following their western ideals who are shedding stereotype, will also shed their's.

Appendix

I also never liked some LGBT actions. They kinda promote many natural human thing as exclusively to gays. On the line of west. Mature activist like kavi, vanita, kidwai, bandhoppadhya do work on Indian context. It is the amateur activist who kind of piss me off. They do what biologist did with bt brinjal and its result will also be similar. It does not take a deep research but a common sense and open mind. Nobody worship Thor in India, so abusing him will not cause blasphemy. So things will work when done in context or either they will in neglected or worst worsening the situation. I somehow feel sexual communalism is inevitable, I try to remain secular.

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.

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

Three Idiots

Poorva Mimansa is more atheistic than both Buddhism and Jainism.


Let us see Jainism do not entertains concept of god and Buddha remained his silence both for god and deities.

Later Buddhist rejected god but not deities, Jainism do believes in deities. But in Jainism these deities are not Siddhartha and can only bestow material gains. In Mahayana even god can be believed, and in Hinayana and even in Theravada deities are not rejected although here not much importance is given. 

That, in Buddhism deities are symbolic is a modern interpretations or propaganda , a more traditional Buddhist believes in the ontological existence of deities. although deities are not so important in Dhamma.
In Poorva Mimansa, the earliest document we have is Sabara Bhasya, a commentary on Mimansa Sutra attributed to Rishi Jaimini. Here only, the ontological existence of deities is refuted when Sabara writes , 'the vedic gods are mere words and sounds ' and 'there existence is not outside of vedas ' .No modern propaganda , no atheistic interpretations done as done to Adwaita Vedanta. But the earliest resources itself is clear on its stark atheism. Later Mimansak remains doubtful over deities and Mimansak like Kumarila and Prabhakara wrote extensively to refute the concept of god but maintained silence over deities.

In a nutshell Mimansa was more atheistic in origin over  Buddhism and Jainism  Today Vedanta is more famous among Vedics and many too find Adwaita if they leave Buddhism and Jainism , more interesting than Mimansa, not that mimansa is lesser than any other.

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?