Bias in Indology?

[C.R. Selvakumar]

'>'C.R.Selvakumar evidences a more fundamental problem
'>'in understanding other cultures or times
'>'in stating that Tamil writings only include the brain as
'>'the center of being.

     I'm sorry you are misinterpreting my words. When you claimed
     the following, I cited some examples from Tamil.

     <QUOTE>

     The modern West is oriented to thinking and the brain,
     whereas, the East and older documents write more of
     feeling (and intuition) centered in the guts.

     </END QUOTE>

     Would you please quote my words where I claim 'Tamil writings only
     include the brain as the centre of being' ?

     Thanks

     C.R. Selvakumar



'>'This countering statement to mine of separate centers may be based upon
'>'differences in experiencing the identity of the =91self=92 with the brain=
'>'. In
'>'the States the separation of mind and brain was rejected by many who
'>'insisted that the mind and brain were one and the same. The discovery of
'>'memory and action centers in other organs has diminished this school of
'>'thought however, as well as the failure of the computer to replace many
'>'mental functions. Modern psychology likewise generally ignores the mind
'>'aspect of thought and has generally thrown out the concept of the earlier
'>'accepted term of conation that was similar to many Indian views of though=
'>'t.
'>'As I read original religious documents, one common theme seems to be to
'>'teach the methods for finding the separation of mind and brain. In the
'>'States, many individuals are introduced to what is called =93yoga and
'>'meditation=94 wherein many classes introduce the idea of tat tvam asi.
'>'Supposedly the practices offered by the class will assist the student in
'>'=91feeling=92 the truth of the expression.
'>'It is interesting to observe that many original Christian writings seem a=
'>'lso
'>'to point to the separation of mind and brain although the majority of mod=
'>'ern
'>'Christian churches seem to stress only the brain.
'>'Perhaps my concern can be stated as two questions. How can a culture be
'>'understood with a bias based upon a different conditioned religious or
'>'experiential relationship of the self and world. How can Indology be trul=
'>'y
'>'objective without religious or spiritual (and scientific) considerations?
'>'Another concern of mine is the seemingly difference in the inner vital
'>'forces of early writings and modern interpretation.
'>'
'>'Regards
'>'Bob Peck
'>'