Bhanu Padmo

Is it the feminine sex organ that makes woman a woman?

(For more detailed discussion : http://www.bhanupadmo.com/ )

So, Can soul ever leave body if the former is the experience of having body?

(more detailed discussion : http://www.bhanupadmo.com)/

Is sex option is really the cause of sexuality?

(more detailed discussion : http://www.bhanupadmo.com)/

Doesn’t a magnet exercise choice about what we call magnetic and non-magnetic materials?

Will the picture be clearer if we descend down to the levels of what we call inanimate? What would we see there?

(more detailed discussion : http://www.bhanupadmo.com)/

Is abrogation of religion a better option?

What could possibly be the true solution?

(more detailed discussion : http://www.bhanupadmo.com)/

Which considerations, in your opinion, are missing in the Theory of Evolution propounded by Darwin and Wallace (though it provides radical and appropriate explanation for the consequences in the lineage of organism)?

(more detailed discussion : http://www.bhanupadmo.com)/

Isn’t a spec of happiness the subjective sensation of a corporal micro-evolution?

Shouldn’t we therefore seek a culture of happiness?

(more detailed discussion : http://www.bhanupadmo.com)/

Consider this : Salt is its own configuration as Sugar is. It seems quality or property is born of corresponding configuration. If God was to create, how would He go about?

Consider this : Salt is its own configuration as Sugar is. It seems quality or property is born of corresponding configuration. If God was to create, how would He go about?

Consider this : The picture of the Spring is usable even in Winter. So could the picture be deemed to be greater than the season? This logic puts Deity on a higher dais. But I like to know if it is alright, that is to say, if Deity is greater than God. (It may be noted that Deity is the symbol of God.)

Is the traditional theist one who resorts to gross conciliation in matters of God to hide his/ her inability to define this phenomenon?

Consider this : If God is to contain all and is to be the greatest being thus, what else other than the Universe itself be the God?

Consider this : The consequences of habits are various corporal adaptations which have a genetic basis. That is to say - habits could be the cause of such genetic imprints that cause corporal adaptations. Again habits are products of personal realizations or personal truths. So doesn't it look probable that the 'personal realization' itself as 'personal truth' affects the genetic constitution?

Consider this : The World and the Cosmos is in the continuous process of reorganization. So can we theorize that the beginning was a conglomeration of innumerable isolated point-existences that are since then being continually organized and configured into more sophisticated areas and volumes whose total count is dropping sharply?

What I mean is this : Social freedom of any dimension is in question after marriage. What should be the marital justice about this?

Q-8-4 Your friend seems to be indifferent to the idea of getting married, though he is growing older. What are your feelings about your friend’s such indifference?

1. It is his wish. He is ‘free’ to think or do whatever he likes.

2. Talk of such ‘freedom’ is indeed a bluff. Nobody is free to do what shouldn’t be done. So idea of ‘marriage’ is to be analyzed before he is declared right or wrong.

3. Yes. It needs to be settled. Blind indifference is not right.

4. Indefinite continuation of bachelorhood/ spinsterhood is not right on his/ her part as his/ her ‘reincarnation-in-reproduction’ is being postponed indefinitely.

5. ‘Reincarnation-in-reproduction’ will not be complete or successful, if it is postponed beyond a critical limit.

6. Conjugality and consequent family is an invisible chain. It may even be the strongest chain of bondage. He will be lucky if he can avoid ‘marriage’ in this life.

7. Marriage is a hindrance on the path of salvation.

8. He should marry. If not, he will have nobody to nurse his old age.

9. Isn’t it a bit of meanness - to extract out of marriage ‘unilateral personal benefits’ like ‘getting nursed in old age’? Freedom is never for free. He is ready to pay for freedom by risking his old age. He is brave and good and so, right too.

10. This may be the consequence of his ongoing indecision. He hasn’t yet collected enough clues that would lead him to a decision.

11. His ‘indifference’ isn’t a form of ‘satisfaction’ in any way. It is a potential danger as deep damaging anxiety is accumulating day by day.

Q-8-5 What is your feeling about ‘divorce’?

1. Divorce in general is ‘bilateral freedom’ and both spouses are the winner contenders.

2. Divorce in general is a ‘bilateral failure’ and both spouses are the losing contenders.

3. Divorce in general is an event in which the contender among the spouses wins and the other loses.

4. Divorce in general is a ‘tripartite failure’, if the divorced spouses have already an offspring begotten out of their marriage.

5. Divorced spouses may be likened to wounded soldiers who have been fighting with each other.

6. Divorced spouses may be likened to wounded soldiers who have been encountering together the common enemy called ‘human psychology’.

7. The spouses fell apart because of the exclusive fact that one was wronged by the other.

8. The spouses fell apart because both were novices in the ‘great dangerous game with intricate rules’ that was only partly known to them.

Q-8-6 What is your feeling about the ‘nature of marriage’?

1. It is originally a ‘sweet affair’ and should continue to be the same till the end.

2. Who said that it is originally ‘sweet’? It need not be originally sweet to be valuable.

3. Isn’t bitter medicine extremely useful? Marriage can be a medicine!! Isn’t it? And extremely useful. Isn’t it? I think so.

4. It isn’t a sweet affair inasmuch as sweetness is only its possible end product.

5. It is a sweet affair because it begins with love, the sweetest of all affairs.

6. So ‘love’ is sweet and marriage is only a ‘potential sweetness’.

7. In fact ‘love’ is greater than ‘marriage’ insofar as ‘marriage’ at times buries ‘love’ when ‘love’ always cultivates ‘marriage’ though it may at times fail to culminate in it.

8. ‘Love’ is the sensation of the potentiality that materializes in marriage.

9. ‘Marriage’ is an arrangement for ‘sustained sprouting coexistence’ when ‘love’ is ‘sparking transient contact’. Thus, ‘love’ may be likened to a thrillers frequented by ‘probe-suspense’ when ‘marriage’ is like a course of meal, progressively fulfilling.

10. Thus, ‘marriage’ is higher than ‘love’.

11. There isn’t the need for this superfluous term – ‘marriage’ – when ‘love’ is sufficient to bind the contenders in a ‘sustained coexistence’. Isn’t it? I think – yes.

12. Even acquaintance couldn’t coagulate into ‘love’ without the ‘mutual declaration of love’ (say – saying ‘I love you so much that I want to be with you forever’). Is this ‘ritual’ essential in this flimsy matter of ‘transient reciprocal probe’? Isn’t it avoidable? I think – yes.

13. This ‘ritual of love’ (‘mutual declaration of love’) is necessary and vital. Without it, ‘love’ couldn’t coagulate further.

14. What about the coming about of ‘sustained sprouting coexistence’? Would it require a more serious ‘mutual declaration’? I think – yes.

15. So, Shouldn’t this heavier ritual be named different from the previous ritual that was named ‘ritual of love’? I think – yes. Let it be called the ‘ritual of marriage’.

16. Thus, ‘love’ and ‘marriage’ are very different.

17. Thus, ‘love’ and ‘marriage’ are of same kind - varying in degree.

18. ‘Marriage’ varies from ‘love’ in kind, as the former is ‘decisive’ when the later is ‘tentative’.

Q-8-1 What is your feeling about ‘institution of marriage’?

1. The ‘institution of marriage’ isn’t as important as we are made to believe.

2. It is important, indeed very important.

3. Religions across the world could be fully right about the importance of ‘institution of marriage’.

4. Religions across the world couldn’t be fully right about the importance of ‘institution of marriage’.

5. Religions across the world could be fully right about the importance of ‘institution of marriage’, but seem to be wrong about the ‘course of marriage’.

6. Religions across the world could be fully right about both the importance of ‘institution of marriage’ and the ‘course of marriage’.

7. Religions across the world could be fully wrong about both the importance of ‘institution of marriage’ and the ‘course of marriage’.

8. Religions across the world are only partially right about both these aspects of marriage.

9. An individual needs no extraordinary wisdom to understand ‘marriage’.

10. An individual needs extraordinary wisdom to understand ‘marriage’, because the concept of marriage is extra-ordinarily complex.

11. Why should the concept of marriage ever be complex? It is quite simple.

Q-8-2 What are your feelings about ‘goal of marriage’?

1. Everybody knows it. It is ‘sex’.

2. Everybody knows it. It is ‘unidirectional sex’, inasmuch as ‘marriage’ is restricted to sexual relationship with only the spouse.

3. Yes. But a doubt surfaces at this point. Why should ‘multi-directional sex’ be reduced to ‘unidirectional sex’ at all? So such a goal for marriage is somewhat doubtful, honestly speaking.

4. Marriage’s aforesaid goal of ‘unidirectional sex’ is ‘doubtful’ if it is a decisive step against ‘multi-directional sex’.

5. If one is inclined thus to call such a ‘goal of marriage’ a ‘clear goal’, either he/she is lying or his/ her mind hasn’t cultivated enough resolution.

6. The ‘goal of marriage’ is ‘secured sex’ inasmuch as post-marriage life could avail ‘sex’ (with spouse) with less difficulty.

7. ‘Goal of marriage’ is ‘unidirectional cumulative sex’. Single sexual encounter with the opposite kind may be deemed to be only a link in the complete chain.

8. What about ‘multi-directional cumulative sex’? Why should this be sacrificed in favor of ‘unidirectional cumulative sex’? So this ‘goal of marriage’ (‘unidirectional cumulative sex’) is also doubtful.

9. Another individual is like a tome, a huge tome to be read and understood. One can not in one life time go through many such tomes, not even the second one – may be. So marriage has to be unidirectional to make ‘cumulative sex’ to mature.

10. How is a single mature sequence of ‘cumulative sex’ superior to sum of many immature sequences of ‘cumulative sex’? This ‘goal of marriage’ (‘unidirectional cumulative sex’) is also in doubt.

Q-8-3 What is your feeling about the ‘reproductive process’?

1. It is a mere biological process.

2. It isn’t a mere biological process. It is an intellectual process as well.

3. It isn’t an intellectual process as reproduction is primarily a process initiated by the sexual act of the sexual organ.

4. A sexual act is expected to be and can be an intellectual act insofar as sexuality is a medium of exercising and assimilating intellectual influence.

5. It may be deemed that long cherished or long-practiced ideas become genes and become by and by more vital genes that are transmitted from parent to offspring during reproduction.

6. Such assumptions seem to be vindicated when history shows that greater ideas do cause ‘flow tides’ in civilizations that stretch over scores of generations.

7. So ‘reproduction’ may be deemed to be primarily an intellectual process in which ‘intellectual genes’ along with ordinary genes are passed down by parent to offspring.

8. Thus all parental attributes are passed down to the offspring during the process of reproduction.

9. The above is not true. Were it true, then ‘reproduction’ is to be designated as ‘reincarnation’.

10. ‘Progeny’ is indeed ‘reincarnation proper’.

11. The idea of ‘reproduction’ need not be mixed up with the idea of ‘reincarnation’. These are two completely separate things.

Consider this proposition of “Existence Potential”.

Matter exists. Space is absence of matter. So does Space exist?

Then, why do we feel as if Space exists?

Is it the ‘Existence Potential’ that appears to be Space (Conventional Space)?

Can we propose therefore that a 2-unit matter-particle may be deemed to be surrounded by a sphere of its ‘existence potential’ of, say, 4-unit radius that is its ‘conventional space’.

Matter is inclusive of its ‘existence potential’ or ‘conventional space’. Intra-atomic space, intra-molecular space, inter-molecular space etc are all examples of used-up/ erstwhile ‘existence potentials’/ ‘conventional spaces’.

Now does it seem plausible that inter-planetary and inter-stellar spaces too are used-up/ erstwhile ‘existence potentials’?

As a corollary, is it not clear that present Conventional Space can stretch at the most till it becomes a spherical cover around the present Universe and not beyond?

So, is Universe infinite? Does Space exist?

(Discussions may be detailed and decisive.)

Consider human body as an analogy for God. Human body is a pyramidal hierarchy composed of organs of various abilities distributed at different levels. The greatest organs are located towards apex of the pyramid. Size of the top organs reduce dramatically as their share of body control rises in inverse proportion. Thus the minuscule apex becomes the ‘brain’.

For a resident body cell, isn’t the body the real God?

Isn’t this story analogous with that of universe? Isn’t the Universe too is a pyramidal hierarchy? Isn’t an entity like a cell of Universe? Isn’t the Universe our Real God?

What would you say?

(Discussions may be detailed and decisive.)