Logic of Yoga
vaidix at HOTMAIL.COM
Thu Jan 18 17:28:11 EST 2001
>From: Ian Goddard <Ian at GODDARD.NET>
Thanks for the URL. I think it is a good beginning.
>Originating in India in the 5th century AD, the system of numeration >used
>throughout the world...
What was discovered in 5AD? I believe brAhmaNas already knew number systems
based 10 (the count of stomas, syllables of meters etc).
Relevance to Indology: Technology and mathematics are going to invade every
subject and Indology is no exception. I suppose we can discuss the outlines
and take the details to another forum.
Relativity as a concept is known since eternity (vyAvahArika satya etc). The
process of discovery itself is a way to take the mind from relative
existence to the higher existence, if not absolute. Galileo proved that the
statement "Every thing rotates around the earth" is only a relative truth.
Einstien used relativity to remove the most important piece of illogic
namely "action at a distance", so the concept became popular with him.
Your statement that people in general ignore the basic truths and seek after
higher truths is quite valid (which itself has philosophical implications);
and your articles on different topics like space, time and motion do seem to
represent yogic way of thinking. Infact the mind/body actually works (even
for a Socrates) according to those rules of finding absolute truth as you
explained, but "we" deviate from the rules thinking something else is the
truth. As a result we knowingly or unknowingly avoid the meditations, but
they seem to keep happening due to natural physical laws.
Inspite of the striking similarity with yoga, I am sorry to say this is not
necessarily Indology, because all this can be developed under any other
banner, even though they may not come to the same conclusions such as yoga.
Number systems based on 10 are Indian, but your hypotheses can be proved
using Roman numerals also! (Romans sure knew absolute zero, which is all you
need to determine the whole truth!)
I do not know western philosophical systems, but back to Indology, in my
opinion philosophers since Buddha's time did not go beyond the basics and
ignored the complexities which their Vedic ancestors knew in much greater
depth; and the discourse was limited to space, time, causation, lower self
and higher self. I agree this was important, but as gauDapAda used to say
we are 'capable of knowing' (much higher).
Now going by the symmetry of these models, it should all work like a
Euclidian space, where every combination of numbers must be possible.
Unfortunately that is not the case. If you add variables like "limited" and
unlimited", "knowing" and "forgettting", "front" and "back", "up" and
"down", "you " and "me", "left" and "right" and so on, the complicatons will
escalate in such a way that an organism has to spend all its life only to
decide how to life a tea cup. There are favorite short cuts, and that is
what Vedic brAhmaNAs are all about (IMO).
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
More information about the INDOLOGY