Wednesday, March 22, 2017
Saturday, February 4, 2017
DO NOT DEPEND ON THE UNREAL
Man's error is to depend on unreal objects. "I cannot live without these things that arise and later perish" it is his main error. He (Self) being visibly and veritably a part of Paramatma (God) is real and unchanging (without any modification). All the things that are in this world are unreal and changing.
In Life - the body, its abilities, it's companions, time, places, circumstances etc, are unreal but I (Self) is the same That which changes is "unreal" while the unchanging 'Self' that remains the same is "real". The Self, though being "real" (imperishable, eternal), believes itself to be dependent on the "unreal" (perishable). The 'Self' thinks it cannot manage without the 'unreal' (the body, mind, family, friends, money, possessions etc). a mistake.
The "Self" thinks that without the body, Without money without a family without a house, without clothes without food-water I cannot survive - all these are UNREAL dependencies the perishable, the transient. has no independent existence. that which does not have an independent existence. That which depends on something; constantly moves towards destruction; that which is perishing all the time; that which is constantly moving towards non-existence. Though the Self being real, it takes the support of the unreal, and it becomes dependent on the unreal, and even in that dependent state, it thinks that it is independence - this is the main flaw.
This is a great misfortune that you regard your dependence as independence. There is no greater ERROR than this assumption. All such as, injustice, lying, cheating, and also hell etc., are the result of this dependence. Now think! Is money "Self" (Swayam) or is it "foreign" (par, not part of Self)? Is there independence when there is dependence on money? It is a great misfortune that though being dependent, you feel you are independent. You assume that if you had money then you would immediately take the train, fly oversees, buy so and so things. This is dependence on money. It is clearly evident, that without money you cannot get things, then when will you become independent? You will become independent, when you will have no need for anything at all; when you do not need food-water, nor clothes. When will this happen? It will happen, when you feel you are separate from the body.
Thursday, February 2, 2017
Wednesday, September 7, 2016
Most scary video on how under the guise of religious freedom and diversity Brotherhood is influencing US government at the highest level. please circulate.
Philip Haney is founder of Department of Homeland Security and Counter terror specialist fluent in Arabic and lived in the Mid East, hounded by US government for doing his job!!! and mentioning
terms such as
Islam, Islamic Terror, Sharia and reporting on Hamas.
If he was allowed to do his job both Orlando and San Bernardino attacks could have been stopped.
Saturday, August 20, 2016
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
C. K. Raju
Centre for Studies in Civilizations, New Delhi
We reject the myth that Western math is universal. That was always anormative universality: while it was admitted that other ways of doing math existed, it was claimed that Western math was “superior”. This claim of “superiority” (e.g. the claim that metaphysical proofs are “superior” to empirical proofs) rests merely on some anti-scientific church dogmas born of hate politics. Further, the purported “superiority” of Western math, exactly like racist claims of “superiority”, is supported by the very same fabricated church/racist/colonial history (e.g. the myth of Euclid and the myth of his deductive proofs).
Any serious study of plurality in math must critically re-examine other ways of doing math, and select the better way of doing math. Whichmath should be taught in schools and universities? We cannot just assume that existing (colonial) math education should persist. Nor even can we continue to justify it merely on unexamined Western myths and dogmas, even if they are widely believed today (justbecause colonial education propagates them). Indeed, since math is taught as a compulsory subject in schools today, if the present way of teaching it rests on (and subtly propagates) religious dogmas, and related myths, as it does, its teaching must be changed in schools in any secular country.
To this end, of deciding which math is better, we compare formal math with religiously-neutral Indian ganita (together with the explicit philosophy of zeroism). We have selected ganita not for reasons of its Indian origins, but because it concerns practical value, which is surely more universal than Western dogmatic metaphysics. Further, most math taught in schools today (arithmetic, algebra, trigonometry, calculus, probability) historically originated as ganita. Also, those same ganita techniques of calculation continue to be used today for almost all practical applications of math to commerce, science and engineering (and indeed in all computer-based numerical calculations, such as those used to send a spacecraft to Mars, or to make stock-market predictions).
While the West imported ganita for its practical value, its epistemology clashed with the religiously-loaded epistemology of math in the West (e.g. all computer-based numerical calculations are today declared “erroneous”). Ganita was made theologically correct by (a) giving it a veneer of metaphysics (e.g. the use of metaphysical limits in calculus, to align its notion of infinity with church dogmas about eternity), and (b) packaging it with a false history (e.g. that Newton and Leibniz invented the calculus). This cocktail of practical value, religious metaphysics, and false history, was just declared “superior” and globalised by colonial education. Selecting ganita over formal math preserves the practical value, while eliminating the false history and bad metaphysics. Indeed practical value is enhanced: e.g., eliminating Newton’s conceptual confusion about calculus leads to a better theory of gravity. Or, e.g., teaching calculus as ganita enables students do harder problems.
However, the bad metaphysics and false history, underlying formal math, is a key part of colonial indoctrination (“education”). The indoctrinated cling to myths: when one myth is challenged, they try to “save” it by appealing to another (e.g. if the myth of Euclid is challenged they invoke the myth of deductive proofs in the Elements). Hence, to decolonise, the whole collectivity of myths must be simultaneously denied. If this denial is to be intelligible, it cannot also be brief: for brevity assumes shared beliefs. Thus a demand for brevity, in this context, becomes a trick to block dissent.