SV: Did you hear this?

[Bhadraiah Mallampalli]

>From: Lars Martin Fosse <lmfosse at ONLINE.NO>

>My impression is rather that India got colonized because of a >breakdown of
>the Indian state system,

Breakdown of state system is the result of not being up-to-date with
political theories (what is going on elsewhere in the world). The dhArmic
kingdoms are obsolete with cultures who live by different rules.

>The Indian princes and kings that fought the British had the same >kind of
>technology,

I believe the European equipment, artillery techniques and training are
superior and more systematic. In any case the Indian kings deserved to lose.
Imagine rANi of jhAnsi riding a horse when Germans are making submarines.

>I see no reason to lament that Indian citizens go to the US and >acquire
>new knowledge! :-)

Agree with you. But you hadn't seen national news papers all through 1970s
and 1980s. They all cried brain drain for 20 full years. When top public
sector managers were happily emulating the dynasty and mismanaging, the new
graduates had no way to go but out. The computer age of 1990s turned the
tables and exposed the missed opportunities.
An average employee in any Insurance company in US is hardly a graduate. But
even tellers in Indian banks are professionally certified cost accountants
and company secretaries. What stopped them in bidding multi-billion dollar
insurance contracts in US?

>I don't quite see Aristotle as a spiritual technologist. If anything, >that
>description would probably fit Plato better than Aristotle. What >has
>survived of Aristotle's work as relevant to modern times is above >all his
>discussions of ethics and other things not related to the >"natural world".
>Certain ethical and political problems are constant >and endemic, and in
>such matters even ancient philosophers still >count.

Please check

http://www.panspermia.org

Right from childhood, we have been taught to ridicule Aristotle's
observations on how flies are born from cow dung as a refutation of
panspermia. A bad test case can not be used to reject a good theory. Certain
philosophical matters are too delicate to be brushed away.

>I can't see that Darwinism has been dealt a death blow (rather to the
>contrary). If that had been the case, I think Scientific American >would
>have told me, but it hasn't mentioned the matter since I became >a
>subscriber some years ago. Some people may *think* that Darwinism >has been
>dealt a death blow, but that is not quite the same thing.

I may have been harsh on creationism, because most religious scriptures have
mythologies of spontaneous creation. But I think the phrase "death blow" is
appropriate for Darwinism. Scientists are finding that there is not enough
time from the time cooling of earth till now, for micro-organisms to evolve
into full blow humans. Also, most mutations observed during the last 100
years of cancer research are found to be cancerous. Beneficial mutations are
hard to find or prove.

>>I do claim that the theory of jAtavedas (Ai.Br), which proposes that
>> >>beings are pre-conceived according to a cosmic logic; which clearly
>> >>precedes Aristotle, can be a good starting point for those who care.

>This hypothesis seems to be beyond falsification or verification.

I hate to impose an assumption of "truth value in scriptures" on  scholars
who are working on other fields not related to mine. It is unethical on part
if I attempted such a thing. All I am attempting to say for now, is that
Vedic speculations are made under as much good faith as Aristotle did.

>Living beings seem to evolve in interaction with their environment >(land
>creatures may evolve into fish-like creatures like the wales, >for
>instance, just like some dinosaurs evolved into ichtyosaurs). It >is
>likely, I think, that life evolves according to basic natural >laws,

Evolution is not proven yet.

>but apart from that I can't see anything preconceived about it.

Intelligent Design starts with the assumption of a preconceived genes
created in space which come into contact with a host planet.

We all take the existing human or other animal bodies for granted and study
how they are made or how they think and behave. As an extension we also
study how to get liberation etc. The way it goes according to my view, Vedas
make no such assumption. The inner psycho-somatic reflexology (did I coin a
new phrase?) is not just the result of a structure of body/mind which is
created by "somebody"; but it is intricately linked to the logic itself.
prANAyAma re; jAtavedas etc is a piece of cake. One can pick up any
off-the-shelf plug and play mind stilling package from a nearby yoga school.
But explaining in words acceptable to scientists can take decades. Btw,
jAtavedas is a higher concept. There are more basic proposals still pending
for acceptance.

>I agree with that, ideally speaking. But mostly, as far as I can see,
>engineers, doctors, and businessmen go for the latest, whether it is
> >needed or not. The latest and most sophisticated simply has the >highest
>prestige.

Just an example, India can not afford the package of Kellogg's cereals.
Consider how much garbage will be created with India's population.

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