What love is?

[kapdal]

Indian society has lot of double stands especially in what they show of themselves in public and how they are in private. At least, American Society is more honest about who they are in public as well.

I don't think an overwhelming majority of Americans do in public what they do in private. In fact, in most places in the world people don't do in public what they do in private. I am talking about the more intimate of private activities and not kissing.

There is a whole lot of history behind what people wear, whether they kiss in public or not, etc. etc. It is not that western people are genetically hardwired to be liberal, hence they are good and honest, and hence they kiss in public. The current liberalism in West has its roots in the growth of a bourgeioise class a few centuries ago that stressed on rationalism and acted for self-advancement, achieving it through subjugation & oppression of alien people on an unparalled scale. The double standards shown for own people versus other people by the West till just 50 years back may be unmatched in hypocrisy.

So it is a bit naive to get judgmental about the value systems of societies based on these things. People are capable of being hypocrites in all parts of the world.

 

[urmiladuhan]

In my experience, Americans are more upfront and honest about their personal life and in public life too- e.g., divorce rate is higher than 50% there - if things are not working that is not to be hidden - get a divorce. In India - marriages stay intact irrespective of the fact that the marriage has broken down for all practical purpose. - just one example.

I see majority of woman dress up decoratively at work place in India. American society is more honest about keeping things in perspective at work place i.e., it is for doing work not for showing off dresses etc. It is a cultural thing.

 

[singhvp]

In my experience, Americans are more upfront and honest about their personal life and in public life too- e.g., divorce rate is higher than 50% there - if things are not working that is not to be hidden - get a divorce. In India - marriages stay intact irrespective of the fact that the marriage has broken down for all practical purpose. - just one example.

I see majority of woman dress up decoratively at work place in India. American society is more honest about keeping things in perspective at work place i.e., it is for doing work not for showing off dresses etc. It is a cultural thing.

Everything that glitters is not gold. Hypocrisy is a universal phenomenon. Americans may be more extrovert and open minded but I doubt they do not hide anything about their feelings and bed-room behavior. As I have already explained earlier, economic prosperity makes way for liberalization of social values and customs. Kapil has so succinctly elaborated this by giving an example of the emergence of bourgeoisie.

 

[urmiladuhan]

Richard Gere, a foreigner, come to India with good feelings - for some buddhist pupose. It is easy to target a foreigner, especially a well known figure, who does not want to create a controversy. He must be wondering what sort of kangaroo courts this country has after viewing some of the so called popular bollywood movies where all and everything is acceptable. I am convinced. he did not want to create a controversy and instead humbly apologised for his gesture. What sort of vulgar dress a saree is where most of the waist and belly of a woman is bare! - walking in public?

There are different rules for foreigners in India. Why was Shilpa Shetty not made a party in the court? - because she is Indian.
Upender jee, I don't think an Indian has been punished for kissing in Public. Many Goan marriages/christian marriages involve kissing in public.

So, if you are Indian, the Richard Gere case cannot be used to prosecute an Indian.

 

[urmiladuhan]

There are different rules for foreigners in India. Why was Shilpa Shetty not made a party in the court? - because she is Indian.
Upender jee, I don't think an Indian has been punished for kissing in Public. Many Goan marriages/christian marriages involve kissing in public.

So, if you are Indian, the Richard Gere case cannot be used to prosecute an Indian.

Actually the Indian constitution and its laws have been put together largely using American, British and Australian (among other developed countries) constitution. It is supposed to be quite liberal for Indians.

 

[upendersingh]

There are different rules for foreigners in India. Why was Shilpa Shetty not made a party in the court? - because she is Indian.
Upender jee, I don't think an Indian has been punished for kissing in Public. Many Goan marriages/christian marriages involve kissing in public.

So, if you are Indian, the Richard Gere case cannot be used to prosecute an Indian.

No different rules for foreigners in India, but on contrary foreigners are dealt with leniency. If the couple is married and indulged in some obscene behaviour (like kissing etc) in public, then police can arrest them. In the court judge decides what should be the punishment (as IPC section 292-294 has provision for that) and married couple are acquitted mostly, but unmarried couple not. Even police misbehave with such couple. Read below:
.......................................................................................................................................
Operation Majnu : Crackdown on Couples

Lucknow, Dec. 21, 2005: Monday’s police attack on couples at a Meerut park wasn’t a drive against eve-teasing gone berserk.
​

A senior official of the Uttar Pradesh government said the thrashing of young men and women, including married couples, before TV cameras at Gandhi Bagh was meant to be just that: a crackdown on couples who the moral police felt were being amorous.​

“The police had decided to act after receiving complaints from some traders that young couples kissed each other at the park,” the official said. “The complainants said it was embarrassing for older citizens too see the boys and girls in that state of ‘moral turpitude’.”
Link
..................................................................................................................................................

If you still insist that kissing in public is ok, then I would say it's a big price for such cheap behaviour as first police may misbehave, then the accused couple may be taken to the police station, then they may have to arrange for bail and then such couple may be tried and punished as well. Why all this shame for just showing shamelessness?
​

[TABLE="width: 844"]
[TR]
[TD="class: story, align: left"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[upendersingh]

In my experience, Americans are more upfront and honest about their personal life and in public life too- e.g., divorce rate is higher than 50% there - if things are not working that is not to be hidden - get a divorce. In India - marriages stay intact irrespective of the fact that the marriage has broken down for all practical purpose. - just one example.

I see majority of woman dress up decoratively at work place in India. American society is more honest about keeping things in perspective at work place i.e., it is for doing work not for showing off dresses etc. It is a cultural thing.

So, according to you higher rate of divorce in America means that they are more upfront and honest and lower divorce rate in India means Indians are hypocrite and dishonest. So, according to you mostly marriages are just being dragged in India and if the Indians show as upfrontness and honesty as Americans then here too divorce rate will be equal to the Americans. How can you say so? Have you conducted any survey? Such perception can not be expected from a educated person like you.

 

[pscil]

The main difference between the western thought and Indian thought has been that while the Indian thought went beyond the senses by separating the soul from the mind. The western thought equated the soul with the mind. Rene Descartes the great French philosopher and the founder of Cartesian coordinate Geometry says, “the mind (or soul), is a nonmaterial entity that lacks extension and motion, and does not follow the laws of nature”. He also states “I think therefore I am”. Making me the same as my mind. Contrast this with the Upanishads, which state, “You are that” (Tat Tvam Asi) meaning you are not this body or this mind but something beyond the senses and dimension of space and time and that something is termed the soul. As Kabir the great Indian poet says “all knowledge is the knowledge of the soul” or “atama gyan”. He further states “a human being without atama gyan is only a piece of flesh”

This separation of the mind and soul led the Indian thought towards the sublime and focused on the discovery of the internal mysteries of the soul. On the other hand the non separation of the mind and soul in the western thought led the western thought towards the external mysteries of nature since it got stuck at the level of senses and focused on enjoyment of the senses. Therefore while the western thought became expressive and expansionist and rational, the Indian thought became deeply introspective and intuitive, leaving it no energy for expression and expansion. The discovery of zero and decimal is not a rational thought process but one based on intuition. For the western thought the energy of expression, led to its expansion. It also led to the creation of beauty of the sensual world. A beauty that was ready to kill and enslave in order to express and expand. This was the main reason for colonialism and imperialism. God was to be found in the details and the passage to god was through nature.

When Milton or Dante, or any other great European poet, either ancient or modern wants to paint a picture of the infinite, he tries to soar outside, to make you feel the infinite through the senses. Take the poetry of poetry of Milton “No light but rather darkness visible” and contrast this with the Upanishads “When darkness was hidden in darkness”. We who live in the tropics can understand this thought of the Upanishads, when in the sudden outburst of monsoon, the horizon becomes dark and clouds become covered with more rolling black clouds. Another Upanishad poem describes the soul “There the sun cannot illuminate, nor the moon, nor the stars, nor the flash of lightning, what to speak of this mortal fire”. The attempt in the Indian thought is to go beyond the senses and beyond the dimensions of time and space towards an infinity that recognizes the ephermal and transient nature of the world of senses and wishes to grasp the eternal and the infinite in the finite.




Our ordinary view holds that the field of the finite is all that there is. But if the finite has no true independent existence, it cannot be all that is. We are in this way led to propose that the true ground of all being is the infinite, the unlimited; and that the infinite includes and contains the finite. In this view, the finite, in its transient nature, can only be understood as held suspended, as it were, beyond time and space, within the infinite.


The field of the finite is all that we can see, hear, touch, remember, and describe. This field is basically that which is manifest, or tangible. The essential quality of the infinite, by contrast, is its subtlety, its intangibility. This quality is conveyed in the word spirit, whose root meaning is "wind, or breath." This suggests an invisible but pervasive energy, to which the manifest world of the finite responds. This energy, or spirit, infuses all living beings, and without it any organism must fall apart into its constituent elements. That which is truly alive in the living being is this energy of spirit or soul, and this is never born and never dies." (From the last page of Infinite Potential: The Life and Times of David Bohm, by F. David Peat 1997)

Many streams make a mighty river and many rivers fall into a mighty ocean, similarly different people find different paths to realize the eternal truth, eternal truths are truths which are not subject to change over periods of time and space. There cannot be two truths since truth is indivisible but the journey to the truth can be different. This has been the essence of the Indian thought and its secular character. This is the reason why people from different faiths have found refuge in India from time immemorial. Indian thought has mainly relied on going from the particular to the general or inductive logic compared to the heavy reliance of the western thought which moves from the general to the particular or deductive logic.

 

[urmiladuhan]

So, according to you higher rate of divorce in America means that they are more upfront and honest and lower divorce rate in India means Indians are hypocrite and dishonest. So, according to you mostly marriages are just being dragged in India and if the Indians show as upfrontness and honesty as Americans then here too divorce rate will be equal to the Americans.

Well, what I meant was that in Indian society, people are forced to stay married for social reasons whether they are happy in that marriage or not. Divorce is still a stigma especially for the woman. In that way, this lifestyle is hipocracy. When I ask married Indian woman (who are complaining/criticizing in laws, husbands attidude etc in their family), why they don't get out of the marriage if they are so troubled, not a single woman says yes and instead cite social reasons for putting up.

Both Americans and Indians are humans - so that way under same social circumstances, the divorce rate should be the same, I think.

 

[moar]

भड़क, महा-भड़क, करड़ी- भड़क!!


जो हर दुसरे तीसरे महीने आड़े धागों में किसी न किसी रूप में पूछी जाती है , फिर सदस्य एक दुसरे को जवाब दे कर कसुती भड़क पैदा करते हैं !

उस्ताद जी, पक्के शिकारी हो!

 

[upendersingh]

Well, what I meant was that in Indian society, people are forced to stay married for social reasons whether they are happy in that marriage or not. Divorce is still a stigma especially for the woman. In that way, this lifestyle is hipocracy.

Life is tough for one and all. The world is suffering with huge shortage of good people (those people who don't behave like what they don't want to be behaved are good). If someone thinks that divorce is the ultimate solution for a struggling marital life, then it is not true. In America, first marriage divorce rate is lower than the second and third marriage divorce rate. Hypocricy has nothing to do with high or low divorce rate. Divorce rate is the outcome of low moral values and poor culture. For your information, suicide rate in America is also higher than India. Now what would you say?

When I ask married Indian woman (who are complaining/criticizing in laws, husbands attidude etc in their family), why they don't get out of the marriage if they are so troubled, not a single woman says yes and instead cite social reasons for putting up.

If you ask any divorced remarried Indian women they may also say the same things. As I have said the world is suffering with huge shortage of good people so the main problem lies here. Mostly people want to gobble this whole world up. Mostly people want maximum sexual enjoyment, maximum luxury, but when they find their life partners too desiring for the same, then the problem arises. Mostly youths (mainly urban) these days have illicit relations before marriage and after marriage they find themselves unable to give up their such life style, then the problem arises. These are some of the main reasons for divorce rate, not hypocricy.

Both Americans and Indians are humans - so that way under same social circumstances, the divorce rate should be the same, I think.

Both Americans and Indians are humans, but their performance is not same. We have maintained such culture in India which interferes us when we deviate from the right path, but Americans lack it and as a result they suffer.
............................................................................................................................................................................
Divore Rates In America

What are the current divorce rates in America? It is frequently reported that the divorce rate in America is 50%. This data is not accurately correct, however, it is reasonably close to an actual fact. The Americans for Divorce Reform estimates that probably, 40 or possibly even 50 percent of marriages will end in divorce if current trends continue.
​

Age at marriage for those who divorce in America According to DivorceRate.org​

[TABLE="width: 423"]
[TR]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Under 20 years old[/TD]
[TD]27.6%[/TD]
[TD]11.7%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]20 to 24 years old[/TD]
[TD]36.6%[/TD]
[TD]38.8%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]25 to 29 years old[/TD]
[TD]16.4%[/TD]
[TD]22.3%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]30 to 34 years old[/TD]
[TD]8.5%[/TD]
[TD]11.6%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]35 to 39 years old[/TD]
[TD]5.1%[/TD]
[TD]6.5%[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

The following statement about the divorce rates in America reveals all the details about distribution. According to enrichment journal on the divorce rates in America, the divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%; the divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%; the divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%. According to discovery channel, couples with children have a slightly lower rate of divorce than childless couples. Sociologists believe that childlessness is also a common cause of divorce. The absence of children leads to loneliness and weariness and even in the United States; at least 66 per cent of all divorced couples are childless. According to some experts, however, divorce rates tend to go down primarily because more couples live together without marrying. Other researchers have documented what they call “the divorce divide,” contending that divorce rates are indeed falling substantively among college-educated couples but not among less-affluent, less-educated couples.

The divorce rate in America is more than 50%, which means one in two couples will break up. Why it is so high. What is the real reason for them to divorce? I think we should look for the answer from the American belief. Freedom is one of the most important beliefs for America and nothing can replace it besides love. When they married, they don’t run for long love. If they think the love and family can’t offer their happiness and safety, they would choose to divorce. They wouldn’t think more about the family or the children because they take themselves as the center. That means they love freedom not stability. Their dreams are running for their own blessedness.​

As the divorce rates in America rises, bad effects do happen on the children who are use to growing up with both parents. When both parents raise a child, the child is learning different things from each parent. The child is also developing its own personality by getting traits from each parent. When divorce leads one parent to leave the household, it has a huge effect on the children. Both parents need to continue to play an important role in the child’s life. When a parent leaves the household, this can make the child withdraw and feel unwanted. It can affect their schoolwork, social skills, and their activities. They may act out in different ways, to show you they are not happy with this change in their life. It may also affect the child when the child becomes an adult. When the child becomes a parent, they may think it is not important for their child to have both parents involved in their life.
​

Link

 

[samarkadian]

My first and probably last ''Like''. Irrespective of the thread subject, this beautiful post by Parvir ji is an outstanding example that Jatland is not merely a Mauj Masti forum. It has the capacity to produce amazing thoughtful material. I will humbly request Parvir ji to keep writing a bit regular unlike once in blue moon.

The main difference between the western thought and Indian thought has been that while the Indian thought went beyond the senses by separating the soul from the mind. The western thought equated the soul with the mind. Rene Descartes the great French philosopher and the founder of Cartesian coordinate Geometry says, “the mind (or soul), is a nonmaterial entity that lacks extension and motion, and does not follow the laws of nature”. He also states “I think therefore I am”. Making me the same as my mind. Contrast this with the Upanishads, which state, “You are that” (Tat Tvam Asi) meaning you are not this body or this mind but something beyond the senses and dimension of space and time and that something is termed the soul. As Kabir the great Indian poet says “all knowledge is the knowledge of the soul” or “atama gyan”. He further states “a human being without atama gyan is only a piece of flesh”

This separation of the mind and soul led the Indian thought towards the sublime and focused on the discovery of the internal mysteries of the soul. On the other hand the non separation of the mind and soul in the western thought led the western thought towards the external mysteries of nature since it got stuck at the level of senses and focused on enjoyment of the senses. Therefore while the western thought became expressive and expansionist and rational, the Indian thought became deeply introspective and intuitive, leaving it no energy for expression and expansion. The discovery of zero and decimal is not a rational thought process but one based on intuition. For the western thought the energy of expression, led to its expansion. It also led to the creation of beauty of the sensual world. A beauty that was ready to kill and enslave in order to express and expand. This was the main reason for colonialism and imperialism. God was to be found in the details and the passage to god was through nature.

When Milton or Dante, or any other great European poet, either ancient or modern wants to paint a picture of the infinite, he tries to soar outside, to make you feel the infinite through the senses. Take the poetry of poetry of Milton “No light but rather darkness visible” and contrast this with the Upanishads “When darkness was hidden in darkness”. We who live in the tropics can understand this thought of the Upanishads, when in the sudden outburst of monsoon, the horizon becomes dark and clouds become covered with more rolling black clouds. Another Upanishad poem describes the soul “There the sun cannot illuminate, nor the moon, nor the stars, nor the flash of lightning, what to speak of this mortal fire”. The attempt in the Indian thought is to go beyond the senses and beyond the dimensions of time and space towards an infinity that recognizes the ephermal and transient nature of the world of senses and wishes to grasp the eternal and the infinite in the finite.




Our ordinary view holds that the field of the finite is all that there is. But if the finite has no true independent existence, it cannot be all that is. We are in this way led to propose that the true ground of all being is the infinite, the unlimited; and that the infinite includes and contains the finite. In this view, the finite, in its transient nature, can only be understood as held suspended, as it were, beyond time and space, within the infinite.


The field of the finite is all that we can see, hear, touch, remember, and describe. This field is basically that which is manifest, or tangible. The essential quality of the infinite, by contrast, is its subtlety, its intangibility. This quality is conveyed in the word spirit, whose root meaning is "wind, or breath." This suggests an invisible but pervasive energy, to which the manifest world of the finite responds. This energy, or spirit, infuses all living beings, and without it any organism must fall apart into its constituent elements. That which is truly alive in the living being is this energy of spirit or soul, and this is never born and never dies." (From the last page of Infinite Potential: The Life and Times of David Bohm, by F. David Peat 1997)

Many streams make a mighty river and many rivers fall into a mighty ocean, similarly different people find different paths to realize the eternal truth, eternal truths are truths which are not subject to change over periods of time and space. There cannot be two truths since truth is indivisible but the journey to the truth can be different. This has been the essence of the Indian thought and its secular character. This is the reason why people from different faiths have found refuge in India from time immemorial. Indian thought has mainly relied on going from the particular to the general or inductive logic compared to the heavy reliance of the western thought which moves from the general to the particular or deductive logic.

 

[singhvp]

The main difference between the western thought and Indian thought has been that while the Indian thought went beyond the senses by separating the soul from the mind. The western thought equated the soul with the mind. Rene Descartes the great French philosopher and the founder of Cartesian coordinate Geometry says, “the mind (or soul), is a nonmaterial entity that lacks extension and motion, and does not follow the laws of nature”.

This separation of the mind and soul led the Indian thought towards the sublime and focused on the discovery of the internal mysteries of the soul.

When Milton or Dante, or any other great European poet, either ancient or modern wants to paint a picture of the infinite, he tries to soar outside, to make you feel the infinite through the senses.




Our ordinary view holds that the field of the finite is all that there is. But if the finite has no true independent existence, it cannot be all that is. We are in this way led to propose that the true ground of all being is the infinite, the unlimited; and that the infinite includes and contains the finite. In this view, the finite, in its transient nature, can only be understood as held suspended, as it were, beyond time and space, within the infinite.


The field of the finite is all that we can see, hear, touch, remember, and describe. This field is basically that which is manifest, or tangible. The essential quality of the infinite, by contrast, is its subtlety, its intangibility. This quality is conveyed in the word spirit, whose root meaning is "wind, or breath." This suggests an invisible but pervasive energy, to which the manifest world of the finite responds. This energy, or spirit, infuses all living beings, and without it any organism must fall apart into its constituent elements. That which is truly alive in the living being is this energy of spirit or soul, and this is never born and never dies." (From the last page of Infinite Potential: The Life and Times of David Bohm, by F. David Peat 1997)

Though a beautifully written philosophical discourse, the core question of “what is love” seems to be reeling under the heavy load of spiritualism. If critically examined, following questions remain unanswered.

1. What is the definition of love, its origin, forms and intensity?
2. Is it a commandment of some ‘non-material entity’ referred to as soul by Descartes?
3. Does the love between young hetero-sexual couples have something to do with the ‘eternal soul’ ‘sublimation’ or ‘internal mysteries of the soul’?

In my opinion, love between young couples emanates more from physical attraction and ex factors viz. social status, financial position and educational level etc. rather than any divine commandment. The main and highly calculated objective of this love is to extract sensuous enjoyment and not to achieve sublimation through separation of mind from soul . The mysticism as found in our ancient books was a handiwork of the priests (Brahmins) crafted on the behest of contemporary rulers to obfuscate the real issues which might have led to social conflict and dethronement of dynasties. So, it was an effort to divert man’s attention from the real world to the realm of anti-trust, dogmas and superstition with a clear intention to dilute the militant fervor of the deprived section of society. I find Dante, Milton and some more European poets and philosophers more pragmatic in their approach towards making you feel the infinite through the senses and not through mysticism. We cannot be sure about what we are not able to feel, sense or see. Nature is a greatest mystery and so many secrets are yet to be unraveled pending which it would be un-scientific and illogical to assume the unimaginable and unseen things as divine truths.

 

[cutejaatsandeep]

i dont believe in luv n in luv marriages....yee luv ki baatein sirf books mai hi achi lagti hai...aajkal harr insaan doosre se kissi na kissi matlab se baat karta hai....dis applies for both male n female...male female se eek hi cheez chahta hai...waise hi females male ko eek atm card ki tarah use karti hai.

 

[urmiladuhan]

For your information, suicide rate in America is also higher than India. Now what would you say?


]

Poorer record keeping in the Indian System - could be a factor.

 

[mandeep333]

Love is complete surrender. It is selfless and flawless. Therefore it is well said God is Love & Love is God. It has no beginning and no ending. Felling in love with a person most of the times gradually turns into selfishness and expectations. These are necessarily outside the periphery of Love. So let us not confuse love with physical attractions which are no more than voluptuousness. Sycophancy has no place in the realm of Love. As I said before LOVE is TOTAL Surrender!
A friend's love is one of the few elements that both provides and returns something of real and overriding benefit. That is true with the other actions we have known as necessary in finding meaning in our lives as well.

 

[pscil]

Dear Samar

Always nice to receive your encouragement just keeps me going. Just been very busy lately. Please leep in touch and thanks for your birthday wishes. God bless you. Regards Parvir Singh

 

[urmiladuhan]

.aajkal harr insaan doosre se kissi na kissi matlab se baat karta hai....dis applies for both male n female...male female se eek hi cheez chahta hai...waise hi females male ko eek atm card ki tarah use karti hai.

If true, isn't that horrible?
I can only talk about myself, I am a genuine person and that is why I sort of stand out where ever I am and I love that!

 

[urmiladuhan]

A friend's love is one of the few elements that both provides and returns something of real and overriding benefit.

So true! A good friend is a blessing indeed - a precious gift. Friends are people whom we choose ourselves, unlike relatives.

 

[urmiladuhan]

Operation Majnu : Crackdown on Couples

Lucknow, Dec. 21, 2005: Monday’s police attack on couples at a Meerut park wasn’t a drive against eve-teasing gone berserk.
​

A senior official of the Uttar Pradesh government said the thrashing of young men and women, including married couples, before TV cameras at Gandhi Bagh was meant to be just that: a crackdown on couples who the moral police felt were being amorous.​

“The police had decided to act after receiving complaints from some traders that young couples kissed each other at the park,” the official said. “The complainants said it was embarrassing for older citizens too see the boys and girls in that state of ‘moral turpitude’.”
Link
..................................................................................................................................................
]​

The kissing couples should have stood up for themselves - gone to the court, if that is where the matter were to get decided. It requires courage, which many don't have.​