With rapid changes in urban living today, peoples’ behavioural patterns and spatial practices undergo a constant process of adaptation and negotiation. Using “house” as a laboratory and everyday life and spatial relations of residents as a framework of analysis, the paper examines the spatial planning concepts in traditional and contemporary Iranian architecture and the associated socio-cultural practices. Discussions are drawn upon from a pilot study conducted in the city of Kerman, to investigate ways in which contemporary housing solutions can better (...) cater to the continually changing socio-cultural lifestyles of residents. Data collection for the study involved a series of participatory workshops and employed creative visual research methods, participant observation and semi structured interviews to examine the interlacing of everyday socio-spatial relations and changing perception of identity, belonging, socio-cultural and religious values and conflict. The inferences from the study showcases the emerging social and cultural needs and practices of people manifested through the complex relationship between residents, the places in which they live, and its spatial planning and organisation. For a better understanding of this complex relationship, the paper argues the need for resituating spatiality as a socio-cultural paradigm. (shrink)

The fundamental building block of the loop quantum gravity (LQG) is the spin network which is used to quantize the physical space-time in the LQG. Recently, the novel quantum spin is proposed using the basic concepts of the spin network. This perspective redefines the notion of the quantum spin and also introduces the novel definition of the reduced Planck constant. The implication of this perspective is not only limited to the quantum gravity; but also found in the quantum mechanics. Using (...) this perspective, we also propose the quantization of the mind-stuff. Similarity between the physical space-time and the space-time of the mind-stuff provides novel notions to study the space-time scientifically as well philosophically. The comparison between the physical- space-time and the space-time of the mind-stuff is also studied. (shrink)

There is a widespread belief in Hinduism that Vyāsa, the alleged editor of the Vedas and author of the Mahābhārata, is identical with Bādarāyaṇa, the author of the Brahma-sūtra. The identification of these two mythic characters, however, originated between 800–980 CE, after the likes of Śaṅkara, Padmapāda, and Bhāskara, but before Vācaspati Miśra, Prakāśātman, Sarvajñātman, and Yāmuna. The purpose of this paper is to understand how and why such identification took place. The argument developed here is that the Bādarāyaṇa-Vyāsa identity (...) was invented by the author of or community behind the Bhāgavata Purāṇa as part of a complex of self-representation strategies. The Bhāgavata intentionally makes itself a work of Vedānta, indeed the Brahma-sūtra itself, over which it builds a new soteriology that is centered on the idea of bhakti. Two factors in particular stand out in light of the Bhāgavata’s Vedāntic background: Vyāsa’s paradigmatic character as the preserver of old dharma and the innovator, visionary, of new soteriologies; and the image of Vyāsa’s son Śuka as the model ascetic and ideal candidate for the new soteriological vision, through whom the Bhāgavata community chose to represent itself. (shrink)

It is the view of most people who claim the authoritative nature of the Bible that, women’s assigned secondary status in relation to men is ordained and supported in the Bible. Many have quoted different texts of the holy writ to support their culturally-biased position on issue of gender equality. Most often views in respect to gender issues are culturally-based and interpreted rather than divinely-based and interpreted. There is therefore the need to look back at Jesus’ words, “But at the (...) beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.” (Matt 19:4; Mark 10:6). The two accounts in the Book of Genesis by the Priestly and Yahwistic strands give a complimentary account of the creation of humankind (both male and female) in the image and likeness of God and their creation from a single stock (<d*aº*) who was not a male gender. At a cursory reading of the creation accounts, one will tend to see <d„`ah*³ as the male gender, but looking at the Hebrew text more closely it will be noticed that the Hebrew words hV*aÍ !and vya !were only introduced after the two genders have been separated. Note carefully that it was not vya! that was asked to tend the garden, who named the animals, was given instruction of what to eat or what not to eat, who fell into a deep sleep or whose ribs was used in the creation of hV*aÍ!, but it was <d„`ah*³ . It was after the creation or ‘separation’ of hVÍ*a ! (woman – the female <d„`ah*³) that the other part was called vya ! (man – the male <d„`ah*³) (see vv 23 & 24). It will therefore not be right to speak of the creation of hV*aÍ ! out of vya!, because as at the time of the creation of the former, the later was not in existence as vya ! To view these creation accounts with the sense of gender superiority (either male over female or vice versa) is to read the texts using lenses which have been obscured and tainted by patriarchal, matriarchal or cultural biases. (shrink)