Why I'm against gay marriage

The best thing about gay sambandham is that it is not recognized marriage in India. Why do people want to invite state in their bedroom with gay marriage thing (even when the sex is punishable)? Samlaingik sambandh has rendered these sanskriti ke thekedar and rights and liberty ke chowkidar redundant. The feminist can not take a side, the conservative were never there. As far as domestic violence is concerned, then no violence in any relationship should be tolerated by the state, be it romantic, friendly or blood.

As far as those homosexual men are concerned, who leave their libertarian stand and took up feminism or religion, they have become an enemy to their own cause, fighting the same enemy.

Asking a government to be deciding factor in individual life even onto your own bed is not saner than inviting religious authority to do the same. It was the feminist who first went hambistar with sarkar. Before that, it was the religion which was a continuously watching pervert. 

A state or religion should not interfere with individual personal space, not in the market, not even in so-called public sector services.

It should be kept at a minimal level, and better than asking for recognition of gay marriage one should ask for sticking down any state sponsored marriages. Give the government minimum job that it can perform better, why make it a priest, maulvi, pundit, vyapari, vyabhichari, and even a dildo.

Note: Sodomy is illegal under Article 377 while such law like Defense of marriage act exists, many Hindu couples can marry under present Hindu marriage act due to some weird loophole please refer Ruth Vanita's Love's Rite.

Sabda Pramana for Science - The Nyayikas and Mimamsaks of Modern Day Science

For a layman, how can science be authoritative?

Few people today are in a position to investigate into the true nature of science. A layman is always a layman and most of them like to remain so. The question also arises when a scientist of different stream investigates about other streams (say a linguist about biology). What should he believe or better, whom should he believe? 

A better question would be, ‘is science based on verbal testimony?’ 

It eventually comes to verbal testimony, the first introduction to science comes to us by books and established courses of universities and schools. We cannot be much skeptical about them in our initial stage of learning. Afterward, this kind of learned verbal testimony takes a part of axioms which Mimasak would call ‘svatah pramanit’ or self-valid. ‘A point has no dimension’, ‘two parallel lines intersect at infinity’ etc. one cannot escape from verbal testimony, a better thing to do is to find trustworthy verbal testimony.

A scientist would never agree, for him science is empirical truths or facts discovered by a scientist and rendered into formulas. This is reminiscing of the claim that Veda is the compendium of empirical truths or facts seen by sages and rendered into mantras, again a Mimamsa viewpoint.

But there is another view, to explain their position on Shabda Paraman, Nyaya formulated the theory of ‘Word of Apta person’ or the words of a trustworthy person in the particular field in question. We often find the same argument with ‘scientific’ devotees. The cult of Tesla or of Einstein often takes up the monotheistic flavor just like the Nyayikas who eventually became a theistic Hindu school.

The mimasaka are not into human or superhuman. They never were. From the very beginning of prose part of Veda, the Hindu orthodoxy took up a very anti-theistic position. The Veda are eternal and just like the world are not created by some monster. Sabda Praman is not because of the character of Einstein et al which because of their human nature could be doubted but because of the theories itself.

Mimamsak Scientist would say, “Natural laws of science are eternal, the scientist just discovered them. The eternal laws could equally have manifested in mind of any john dick or harry. Such laws are then tested and validated by scrutiny. Unless falsified there is no reason to doubt the Sabda testimony of science.”

Nyayik Scientist would say, “Science can be learned from the appropriate person. The validity of the testimony of science rest on the validity of the scientist.”

What do you think is the better reason to believe in the verbal testimony of science?

Superstitionisation of Tradition

This is not even a word, superstitionisation, but it is happening. Let me give you an example.

Q. Why do we touch elder's feet?

A. When we touch elder's feet and he touches our head. This completes a circuit and positive energy flows from touched to toucher.

What is this? It is superstitionization of Indian tradition, in which a simple mark of Honor or respect, the touching of elder's feet is explained in scientific jargons having no proper scientific validity. So it changes a simple tradition of showing respect to a pseudo-science and is debunked in due time.

Why not a more traditional way of explaining it, saying it is just the way we do it. Why do we need to explain our Namaste, Pranam etc in such ridiculous way?

It would be difficult to debunk things which are done just for the sake of doing it. How would you debunk handshake or adab? But once it is explained away with neo-science it becomes falsifiable.

Naive Indians fall for that, filled with the inferiority complex. Not realizing that this way any tradition could be finished off easily.

What do you have to say about this?

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.

LGBT Duties

LGBT is, of course, denied the basic rights that even the animals enjoy. It is good they have raised their voice against the Victorian hangover. Lekin as a third person what I see?
Bahar sey, it seems LGBT group in India is blindly imitating their western counterparts (Like any other community in India.)
What does pride parade will give? I don’t know.
How can society give them right to be obscene that even the straights of the country do not have?
Indian society and religion are quite Homophobic. (While all the great Homosexuals of West converted into one form of Hinduism to other.)
LGBT community has a place of garbage. When the rainbow flag is flown high along with Tiranga on an Indian road, the other person perceives it as if garbage is being thrown on the road. They don’t protest, though, just like they don’t do if actual garbage is thrown.
It is not tolerant society but too lazy to actively protest. Although this trend is changing with active Hindutva (and YAY for that…sometimes.)
What is left when the parade is over? Just like any other function in India, it leaves Kuda-kachra all over. While demanding rights they have totally overlooked the duties.
Not only this, there was no active participation of ‘OUT’ LGBT community in Swach Bharat Abhiyan. They truly missed an opportunity to come out and lead with Societal Duties that is absent in Indian mind.
LGBT Indians are too lazy, hypocrite and messed up with both ‘right and left’ nonsense just like an Indian.
LGBT duties are no different than ordinary duties of Indians just like their rights.

Next time when you come out to protest (In your ridiculously peaceful manner, without any civil disobedience!) remember to wash your feet before it gets anything (or anyone) dirty. 

English Speakna

To speak in English is not difficult, but why these foreign tongue people keep telling me to keep working on it? Do i tell them to speak in the way we do? no na! Then they say ki my way of talking is very indigenous. So what I have a deshi style yaar.... what is the problem?
Why should i make a turkey sound? Or use F word in every second sentence?
Han we do have a problem ispeaking certain words, ēspecially the compound consonant sound, but its not that bad na.
Then you say we misplace preposition, arè yaar misplaced preposition is not going to kill you! One Knock 'on' the window will not RIP English!
Most of us are already bilingual, speaking two language and many times different dialects. Then also you make such fuss about 'proper' English jaise ki your life depends on it.
You get what I say na, then do you really have to make fun of it, while your foreign accent is hard to understand by anyone.
And it's not like you can mask your original style, your tongue is accustomed to certain twists and turn and it tends to move that way only. Even you give a certain hint, so that I can say, 'Accha so you are from this or that area'
What is with your infatuation with z, dz, j, s, sound? For me its just ja and ja with nuktah. It might not be honey to your ear but I can't help it.
So I'll keep speaking the way I do, if you have problem with it I'll only write to you, but would you be able to stand my spellings?

भोग से पाप वाया वासना : बौध एक्सप्रेस

भोग से पाप वाया वासना : बौध एक्सप्रेस

बुद्ध घर बार छोड़ ध्यान में थे, (या सो रहे थे किसे पता?) मर आया। वह अपने साथ काम लाया था। पर वह बुद्ध का ध्यान भंग न कर सका, बुद्ध सोते रहे और काम हार गया। वह मर गया।

समाज को दो प्रकार में विभाजित कर सकते है। काम सकारात्मक और काम नकारात्मक। एक ऐसे समाज की कल्पना करीए जहा नर का नर से सम्बन्ध को हेय दृष्टि से न देखा जाता हो। कुछ कुछ प्राचीन यूनान की तरह। एसा समाज केवल काम संतुलित ही हो सकता है। जहा काम को सिर्फ एक भोग समझा जाता हो। कुछ कुछ पूर्व बौद्धिक भारत की तरह। आज का भारत काम नकारात्मक समाज है जैसा की पश्चिम भी था और ज्यादा हद तक अभी भी है। लेकिन कामसूत्रआदि ग्रन्थ किसी काम नकारात्मक समाज के नहीं लगते। महाभारत आदि भी काम संतुलित समाज को ही दर्शाते है। वेद को काम सकारात्मक कह सकते है और कुछ आगम शास्त्रों को तो काम उल्लासक। सर्वलान्करण में भारतीय समाज काम संतुलित ही था और कहीं – कहीं काम सकारत्मक भी। पहले काम को भोग समझा जाता था। यह एक संतुलित सोंच थी। आज के समाज में जहा काम को इतना हीन समझा जाता है, ऐसा विचार काम सकरात्मक ही लगेगा। भोग से नुक्सान भी हो सकता है। भोग वासना को जन्म देती है। चिक्तसिय तौर पे वासना पे काबू पाना होगा। वह एक चिकत्सिय विकास था। फिर एक ऐसे धार्मिक और सामाजिक आन्दोलन की कल्पना करिए जो काम को केवल वासना समझे, जैसा श्रमण आन्दोलन। कुछ कुछ बौध धर्म जैसा जो काम को निर्वाण में बाधा समझता है।

इंडियन फिलोसफी ब्लॉग के एक आर्टिकल में पढ़ा की बौध धर्म में समलैंगिकता का विरोध भारत में पहले से मौजूद व्यापक हेय दृष्टि ही थी। मेरा ऐसा मानना नहीं है। जब काम को भोग माना तो काम के विषय पे चिकत्सिय पाबंधियो के अलावा और कुछ विरोध समझ नही आता। भोग में कुछ भी अच्छा लग सकता है। एसा संतुलित समाज समलैंगिकता के खिलाफ नहीं जा सकता।  भारत का स्वरूप वैसा ही होगा जैसा काम उन्मुक्त जन जातियों का या प्राचीन यूनान का। प्राचीन यूनान की ही तरह यहाँ भी नर से नर का सम्बन्ध बुरा नहीं माना जाता होगा जबतक वह अन्य सामाजिक बन्धनों के अनुरूप हो।

संघो की स्थापना के बाद, मठवासियो को किसी प्रकार की भी काम रूचि पे प्रतिबन्ध था। काम निर्वाण में बाधा है अतः पाप था। इंडियन फिलोसफी ब्लॉग में कहा गया है की इस प्रकार तो विषमलैंगिक सम्भोग ज्यादा पापी होना चाहिये क्योंकि उससे परिवार शुरू हो सकता है जो निर्वाण में ज्यादा अवरोधक है। लेकिन ऐसा हुआ नही। इसका जवाब उसी आर्टिकल में है। बौध मठों में किसी भी प्रकार की काम जिज्ञासा एक पाप था। मठ तक में तो सही पर जब ये मठ के नियम (जैसा की इंडियन फिलोसफी ब्लॉग में भी कहा गया है) साधरण जनता के नेतिक व्यव्हार में लाये जाने लगे तब मुसीबत शुरू हुई। सभी

प्रकार के सम्भोग पाप तो थे पर साधारण जनता के लिए एक ‘योनी सम्भोग’ को पाप श्रेणी से हटाना ही पड़ा। बाकियों के पापी रहने से कोई वांशिक अथवा व्यावहारिक विप्पति नहीं थी।

बौध ग्रंथो में मिलता है की कैसे संघो में पन्दको को आना मना था और जो आ चुके थे उन्हें चुन के बाहर निकाला गया था।

फिर यही संघई नेतिकता भारत के आने वाले विचारों में घुल गयी और धीरे धीरे विक्टोरियाई नेतिकता का सहारा पा कर एक काम सकारात्मक समाज को अति नकारात्मक बना दिया। आज भारत का जो काम नकारात्मक स्वरुप है वो भगवान् बुद्ध, महावीर और आगे आने वाले ब्रह्मचारी सन्यासियों के कारण ही है।