From: rmv@ukc.ac.uk (raj)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil
Subject: mithya
Date: 22 Jan 93 05:17:17 GMT
Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.

From: rmv@ukc.ac.uk (raj)
Newsgroups: soc.cultute.tamil
Subject: mithya
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world
Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.
Keywords: 

>From: ssankara@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Sornam Sankara)
>Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil
>Subject: Relevance and Irrelevance of Various Indian Philosophies (SCI article)
>Date: 21 Jan 93 05:59:59 GMT
>
>
>
>=================================================================
>Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
>From: mahajan@cs.sfu.ca (Sanjeev Mahajan)
>Subject: Relevance and Irrelevance of various Indian philosophies
>Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 15:37:04 GMT
>
>
> long time ago when I was in Canada, I wrote the following article
>for a magazine published by Federation of Tamils in North America.
>Now with the miracle of telnet and hi tech., i have access to the
>net (which is rather painful). This article may also be timely, given
>the alarming rate of rise of Fascism and religious obscurantism
>in India.
>----------------------------------------------------------
>     The Relevance/Irrelevance of Ancient Indian Philosophies to Present
>     Day India

  [deleted]

>
>						 Vedaanta is simply
>the philosophy of the denial of material reality. Material world,
>as described by the Vedaanta, is merely `mithyaa' (a grand falsehood)
>and `that a wise person achieves enlightenment when they realize that
>the only reality is the brahman which is undescribable'. Whatever be
>the philosophical import of the Vedaanta, it is clear that a philosophy that
>condemns the material reality and hence scientific enquiry cannot
>engender an environment conducive to progress of science.
  
   A common "mis"conclusion ( if there is a word like that !)

                           				In Zen they call
is "sunniyatha" (spelling). We call it Maya (or "mithyaa"). Here  what is
grand false is not the real world but your perception of the real world. 
To talk in scientific terms, the world we see is limited by our 5 senses of
perception. The world we see is different from that of a dog's view (
Dog see world in Black & white). The world we "hear" is diffrent from that
of bats. ( bats hear Ultrasonic waves for wich we are deaf). Now , comes the
million dollar question. Which is the real world ?  Is it Dog's , Bat's or
ours ? Or can anyone assert that there is a real world ? All what we "see"
is  reflection on the retina , converted to electrical pulses & sent to
brain. This activates some part of brain. Then we "get" a "feeling" of sight.
In otherwords it is just an electrical pulse representation of the world.
The only differerence between a film & the world is  that a film yields 
2 activates senses (vision , sound) where as the world give 5 senses ( vision , sound, smell , touch, taste) of perception.
                   But isn't this way of thinking logical, objective 
& sound ie "scientific".

              Then where is the error ? The error is in your conclusion. 
The world is s "mithya". So what ?  So, donot cling onto the world as
a source of joy. Why not ? Beacause  it is unreal. Why do you say so ?
Beacause your "world" is what you "see" at this moment. So !
What you "see"  now is different from what you saw yesterday & will be
different from what you will see tommorrow. So what  ? So derive your
source of joy from something permenant. What is it ? ...........
the  "truth" seeking story goes ....

		Here what is renounced is identification with what you see.
But not renunciation of what you see. 
                    

              This way of thinking is the highest of scientific standards. As
your thoughts are so precise & objective. The sages who wrote these  are one of
the greatest "scientists" world ever witnessed. But their field of research
is "Mind".
          But when misunderstood, one will become a  dead meat. This is one of
the reasons why they say ou need a guru to get enlightened in "mainjAnam".

               I will comment on the rest of the article later.

	Although I differ in views, I still appreciate your constructive 
intensions.


      raj
Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil