Double truth etc

[Bhadraiah Mallampalli]

>From: Dmitri <dmitris at PIPELINE.COM>

>Thus, "western" phylosophy is the art of designing questions that >might
>move the subject of phylosophical inquiry into the area of >science. As a
>result of this, phylosophy remains forever concerned >with uncertainties
>while the body of scientific knowledge constantly >increases.
>
>It is interesting to know if such dichotomy "phylosophy-sciences" >existed
>in Indian intellectual tradition.  This dichotomy appear to >exists
>de-facto already in ancient Greece.

I only hope all western scholars accept your definition. If not they may
please raise other opinions.

The indian or other Indic traditions have a "similar" convention (not
exactly same), but makes sense to us). The messy problem is camoflaged in
the garb of symbolism and many historical factors, further confused by
scholars themselves who did not understand the terminology beyond their
narrow field such as purANAs, advaita, dvaita, classical/modern Hinduism,
gIta etc. Many modern scholars like Aurobindo and dayAnand had introduced
their own terminology.

First of all it is undisputed that "science" is "zAstra", whether it is
science of medicine, archery or whatever. zAstrA is verifiable in terms of
materialism.

In addition to this there is "veda", that which can be known. But then what
is the definition of "knowing"? To answer this question one has to go into
depths of the science of perception itself. So veda invented symbolism such
as indra, viSHNu etc. veda may also contain some zAstra but it is rare (ex.
"salt is nutriment".. somewhere in A.B.).

The "symbolism" of veda is misunderstood as "history" by some people
(ayodhya issue), and as "religion" by some others (ritualists), or
"mythology" by others (purANAs). In my opinion, all these are wrong. indra,
viSNu etc are merely symbols of the subject of "knowing". The fact that the
codification was lost does not give the right to any one to monopolyze a
subject one way or other. In the absence of a final proven opinion, all
possible opinions must be explored until one of them is proven.

As for the "uncertainty" aspect it is already included as part of the
symbolism. The unknown, uncertain, or the word "who" (ka) is prajApati in
veda. Wherever prajApati is mentioned it must be taken as the unknown. veda
brings the "unknown" into the equation and builds active relations with the
other "known" objects and mapps them on to mental faculties or other
phenomena found in the nature.

Best Regards
Bhadraiah







_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com