• Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Modern Science in our Scriptures

Status
Not open for further replies.
tks, sometime back you asked what was meant by "high priest", here it is, an example!

You have repeatedly shown a proclivity to never engage in discussions/arguments, but simply present your views as though they are so self evidently true, like the high-priest has spoken, there can be no argument, not accepting what you say marks one as unserious, negatively obsessed, laughable, etc., etc.

Yes, I do offer strong criticisms against Brahminism, claims of Vedic science, blind-faith, etc. If you wish to criticize my views with cogent arguments, please do so, I would welcome it. I am willing to back up every word I say here, or, and if I am wrong, I will readily admit my fault and offer unconditional apology.

If you don't want to waste your time arguing with me about things that you know to be true, then, that is fine too, please go your way. But, refrain from making snide comments like these, it only shows you want to act as a Hota. Such behavior promotes unnecessary ill will.

Cheers!

Nara - 'On vedantam' thread you had no position to offer even after repeated attempts by me and perhaps Saidev. I asked you for a definition for 'Reality' and all you could come up with was an irrational response sidestepping the question in your usual negative and dismissive tone. When I showed that the criteria you implied for proof was illogical you had no more words. You were unable to define what a criteria for proof would be, yet you demanded proof. I also showed that your approach to debates resemble that of people of blind faith. It is hard to have meaningful debates when someone employs such tactics. If you have substance then share it.

I have not seen any of your posting to be balanced. I have not seen you describe in positive light any contributions to human kind from our Vedic Heritage period. Why do you come across as so fascinated with contributions by the West only?

I usually do not like to engage with people of faith even if they claim to be logical.

In the case of the so called Vedic science as I said in my post I am not supportive of tall claims. However in this instance someone says that the speed of light indicated during vedic period to be similar to what we know to be the value today. I don't know if it is true but I am intrigued. I know there are no methods described as to how someone may have measured. Regardless, I am fascinated because I do not have a negative attitude towards knowledge described during Vedic period.

If you have arguments to refute the above claim that the people of vedic times did not know the value of speed of light why dont you present a cogent argument with specifics rather than be dismissive . Why do you have to be always negative about any aspect of Hindu heritage - at least that is how it comes across to me from your posts. The best way you can engage with me is to put up specifics, and put forward cogent and logical arguments without an bias and negativity.

I have not been around Priests much so you can define the term and call me names!​
 
Nara - 'On vedantam' thread you had no position to offer even after repeated attempts by me and perhaps Saidev. I asked you for a definition for 'Reality' and all you could come up with was an irrational
tks, I am ready to debate you on Vedantam thread as much as you want, but, you need to stick to the topic. There is no use asking me to define stuff. If you think a proper definition of "reality" is important to the topic, then define it and make your argument, why do I have to do it for you? It is this kind of game playing that is not in the true spirit of meaningful debate. Please go back to Vedantam thread and present your arguments, or a rebuttal of my presentations, and we can have a discussion. I am ready for a fair debate, not one in which you declare what the rules should be.

When I showed that the criteria you implied for proof was illogical you had no more words.
There you go again, just because you claim something is so, does not make it so. My criterion for making any definitive statement is provable, demonstrable evidence. This is not an illogical stance, even if you say so.

The rest of your presentation is same old wine. If you want to engage me on substance I am ready, if not that is fine too. All I ask you is to refrain from innuendos and snide comments. Why is this so hard, I just can't understand?!!

Cheers!
 
tks, I am ready to debate you on Vedantam thread as much as you want, but, you need to stick to the topic. There is no use asking me to define stuff. If you think a proper definition of "reality" is important to the topic, then define it and make your argument, why do I have to do it for you? It is this kind of game playing that is not in the true spirit of meaningful debate. Please go back to Vedantam thread and present your arguments, or a rebuttal of my presentations, and we can have a discussion. I am ready for a fair debate, not one in which you declare what the rules should be.

There you go again, just because you claim something is so, does not make it so. My criterion for making any definitive statement is provable, demonstrable evidence. This is not an illogical stance, even if you say so.

The rest of your presentation is same old wine. If you want to engage me on substance I am ready, if not that is fine too. All I ask you is to refrain from innuendos and snide comments. Why is this so hard, I just can't understand?!!

Cheers!

Nara - "There you go again"!

You asserted that Brahman, whatever you understand it to be is all figment of human imagination.
Brahman is defined as Sathyam - a word for Reality, a much simpler word to understand.

Since you are the one having problem with what Vedantam teaches you have to provide your definitions. I have given you more than many times my definition of Reality. Part of the problem I sense is that you dont seem to respond taking into account what is already answered.

You cannot conduct a debate without putting forth your position. All the questions I asked you are still open in that thread. Stop making accusation about 'game playing' - I have nothing to gain from that. You are welcome to go back and answer all the questions. I have shown there itself why they are relevant. If you dont want to I dont care. The only reason to take you on is to see if you are reasonable enough to understand that there are many things you do not know and therefore should not be denigrating teachings of Upanishad without substance. You have no rebuttals other than negative claims in that thread.
Rule is simple: Answer questions posed to you, define you opening position, back up your claims against Upanishads,

"Demonstrable evidence" is ludicrous when you have not defined what the axioms are, what is considered a demonstrable thing when you are talking about something that is considered a source of everything. If all you have is such loose statements then there cannot be a debate.

I agree to not call on your lack of logic if you stop denigrating and propagate negativity without content.

In this thread, I asked you a very specific question. Rather than go all over the place, please answer this with concrete facts since you are the one that is denigrating all statements about 'science' from Vedic times.
There is a claim by some in the links that Saidevo provided that people knew speed of light during Vedic times which seem to agree with today's measurements.
Please prove that those claims are baseless

Then we will take up the next topic in Vedic Mathematics
 
Sir:

I reproduce a small passage from Prof.G.Venkataraman's book ' what is Reality '.

In early thirties, Einstein and Tagore had a meeting and here is an excerpt from
their conversation :

Einstein : I cannot prove that scientific truth must be conceived as a truth that is
valid independent of humanity, but I believe it firmly. I believe, for instance, that
the Pythagorean theorem in geometry states that something that is approximately
true , independent of the existence of man. Any way , if there is a 'reality'
independent of man, there is also a truth relative to this reality; and in the same
way the negation of the first engenders a negation of the existence of the latter....
Even in our everyday life , we feel compelled to ascribe a reality independent of man
to the objects we use. We do this to connect the experiences of our senses in a
reasonable way . For instance, if nobody is in this house, yet that remains where
it is.

Tagore : It is not difficult to imagine a mind to which sequence of things happen
not in space but only in time like the sequence of notes in music. For such a mind
its conception of reality is akin to the musical reality in which Pythagorean geometry
can have no meaning. There is the reality of paper, infinitely different from
the reality of literature. For the kind of mind possessed by the moth which eats
that paper , literature is absolutely non-existent, yet for Man's mind literature
has a greater value of truth than the paper itself. In a similar manner, if there
be some truth which has no sensuous or rational relation to human mind, it will
ever remain as nothing as long as we remain human beings.
 
Last edited:
namaste Nara.

• The term 'Hindu' in the past also referred to a nationality, check this booklet:
http://sarasvati95.googlepages.com/antiquityhindu.pdf

‣ especially about what Brihaspati Agama says,
"Starting from Himalaya up to Indu waters is this God-created country Hindustan",

‣ and what ViShNu purANa says:
"Whoever considers the land of Bharatha Bhoomi between Saptha Sindhu and the Indian Ocean as his motherland and fatherland is known as Hindu."

When our country was divided into two, and the Muslims chose the name Pakistan for their land, the Hindus wanted their land to be called Hindustan. It was Gandhi who overruled them and gave the secular name India.

Thus, the term 'Hindu Science' is as much science found in Hindu texts as the science developed by the people of Hindustan.

Did he do that, or is it one those "typically mythical way" that can be molded to fit any claim?

Rather than make a vague allegation that SAyaNa and Gurudatta 'molded' their interpretations, try to show that the way they have derived at their interpretation is false, taking into account the words and phrases. If you are not inclined to do it, then your statement is only your opinion.

Again, the statements you have made in the last two paragraphs of your post #23 about the knowledge of pure and applied sciences in ancient India are nothing more than your opinions tinged with skepticism, derision and dismissal, in the light of knowledge documented in links such as below, which you are perhaps unwilling to look at:
History of Indian science and technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Essays

namaste shrI Ranganathan.

Tagore's observation about the reality of paper as the container and the literature which is its content is striking.

In today's world, the scientific reality of a hundred dollar bill is just the paper it is printed on, but even a scientist would deny this reality in favour of its reality as paper currency! This is a case of anumAnam becoming pratyakSham, which for most people in the world today, even a greater reality than God!
 
Vedic Mathematics ..

Dear friends,

I am a keen student of this subject. I will be grateful if my friends
give any valuable information.

Sri Ranganathan -

There is a large body of work on mathematics developed in ancient times.

I have this pdf version of a article - not sure how to insert that here. There used to be a button to insert and I am unable to find it.
In the mean time let me give a reference


A reference book (I dont have this book though I have browsed it in someone's house) is
“Vedic Mathematics” by
by Motilal Benarsi
Dass, 1992
 
Sir,

Prof. Asimov, an illustrious science writer of USSR, observes :

Eastern mysticism has all sorts of intelligent observations and deductions.
It is possible to see in the remarks of the various Eastern mystical thinkers,
statements that seem to anticipate the findings of modern science. I would
like someone to study the Eastern mystics and from that study to deduce
new facts concerning science.
 
Sir;

While going thru' a book on Taittriya Samhita, I found an interesting observation.

Arka ( Calotropis gigantea ) is described in TS 5-4-3. It is used in the worship of
the Sun and also Lord Ganesa. It has medicinal properties.

Apart from this, D.K.Sarma and C.R. Babu, in their paper ' Fuel Science and
Technology', noted that it has some unexpected use. The plant yields petroleum
ether extract rich in hydrocarbons. These hydrocarbons are most promising as
liquid fuels. These high molecular weight compounds can be hydrocarcked to
yield gasoline, diesel oil and lubricants. The residual biomass can be utilised
to get briquetted fuel, biogas and fertiliser.

Quite an interesting finding !
 
...‣ especially about what Brihaspati Agama says,
"Starting from Himalaya up to Indu waters is this God-created country Hindustan",

‣ and what ViShNu purANa says:
"Whoever considers the land of Bharatha Bhoomi between Saptha Sindhu and the Indian Ocean as his motherland and fatherland is known as Hindu."
Dear Saidevo, does Vishnu purana use the term "Hindu"? I am under the impression there is nothing called Hindu religion. I am now surprised by your claim that these Puranas say god created Hindustan and anyone living in it is a Hindu.

Anyway, if you say you used the word Hindu in a secular fashion to people living in India, I will accept it at face value, but wish to note that this usage of the word "Hindu" is controversial and not universally accepted.

Thus, the term 'Hindu Science' is as much science found in Hindu texts as the science developed by the people of Hindustan.
This is where things get iffy. There are Jewish scientists, not Jewish Science, there are Christian Scientists, but not Christian Science -- the denomination with that name not withstanding. Similarly, there can be Hindu scientists, not Hindu Science. But if you insist that science by Hindus is Hindu Science, then that is grossly imprecise language.

Rather than make a vague allegation that SAyaNa and Gurudatta 'molded' their interpretations, try to show that the way they have derived at their interpretation is false, taking into account the words and phrases. If you are not inclined to do it, then your statement is only your opinion.
Saidevo, I did look at the Yahoo Answers reference, it bases its argument on this one Rg Vedic verse 1.50, which this poster claims says, "[O Sun] you who traverse 2,202 yojanas in half a nimesa". I looked at this Rg hymn here, and did not find the verse as cited. If you know where to look please let me know.

In any case, this Yahoo Answers poster then presents some calculations and concludes, "It does come very close to the correct figure of 186,000 miles per second.” Even the verse cited, which I am not able to find -- any help locating it will be appreciated -- says "Sun" traverses 2,202 yojanas, not light. You may say Sun here stands for light, why is that not molding of the kind we see Dr. Naik do with his Quran? Further, the speed is supposed to be very close, how close is very close, the poster does not say.

Again, the statements you have made in the last two paragraphs of your post #23 about the knowledge of pure and applied sciences in ancient India are nothing more than your opinions tinged with skepticism, derision and dismissal,
No, I did not say science was absent in India. Ancient Indians were keen observers of the world around them and the skies, and did discover many wonderful things. My skepticism is not about that, it is about the claims of the kind speed of light can be calculated from Rg Veda.

I reread my post #23, I don't see any derision, I see skepticism. If you think I am wrong about these observations, show me please.

Cheers!
 
Saidevo, I did look at the Yahoo Answers reference, it bases its argument on this one Rg Vedic verse 1.50, which this poster claims says, "[O Sun] you who traverse 2,202 yojanas in half a nimesa". I looked at this Rg hymn here, and did not find the verse as cited. If you know where to look please let me know.

In any case, this Yahoo Answers poster then presents some calculations and concludes, "It does come very close to the correct figure of 186,000 miles per second.” Even the verse cited, which I am not able to find -- any help locating it will be appreciated -- says "Sun" traverses 2,202 yojanas, not light. You may say Sun here stands for light, why is that not molding of the kind we see Dr. Naik do with his Quran? Further, the speed is supposed to be very close, how close is very close, the poster does not say.

Namaste Sri Nara Sir,

If you had clicked on the second link provided by Sri Saidevo, you would have got to the source of the claim. Anyways, it is here: http://www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/sayana.pdf

T
he correct rk no. is 1.50.4

Regards,

narayan
 
...If you had clicked on the second link provided by Sri Saidevo, you would have got to the source of the claim. Anyways, it is here: http://www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/sayana.pdf

T
he correct rk no. is 1.50.4
Thank you Narayan sir, here is what rk 1.50.4 says:

Swift and all beautiful art thou, O Sūrya, maker of the light, Illuming all the radiant realm.


A lot of molding is needed I guess to get to speed of light from here.

I will take a look at the pdf file and comment later.

What do you think, could one calculate speed of light from this rk?

Cheers!
 
Thank you Narayan sir, here is what rk 1.50.4 says:

Swift and all beautiful art thou, O Sūrya, maker of the light, Illuming all the radiant realm.


A lot of molding is needed I guess to get to speed of light from here.

I will take a look at the pdf file and comment later.

What do you think, could one calculate speed of light from this rk?

Cheers!

Sri Nara Sir,
There seems to be a disconnect Sir. The speed of light is supposed to be mentioned by Sayana in his Bhashyam for this rk as stating that " "It is remembered that Sun traverses 2,202 yojanas in half a nimesa." So you will have to refer to sayana's bhashyam for this rk. Anyway the PDF says it all.

But this is an old matter making rounds for quite sometime.

Regards,

narayan
 
Last edited:
namaste everyone.

Here is the translation by HH Wilson of the Rg Veda verse 1.50.4:

"You, SUrya, outstrip all in speed; you are visible to all; you are the source of light; you shine throughout the entire firmament."

SayaNa says, that, according to smRti, the sun moves 2,202 yojanas in half a twinkle of the eye.

The rest of the derivation is spelled out in the following links already given:
How did Indians know about the speed of light even before it was discovered in 1675? - Yahoo! Answers India
http://www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/sayana.pdf

The Rg Veda sUkta 1.50 is not just about the praise of the Sun God. It does contain (anticipate if it pleases anyone) some 'scientific' facts:

• Verse 7 talks about the Sun measuring out the day and night--an indication of our solar time.

• Verses 8 and 9 talk in metaphorical terms, about the seven rays of the sun.

• Verses 11, 12 might be interpreted to anticipate the Vitamins (Vitamin D imparted by sunlight).

Thus, IMO, there is no "lot of molding" but only logical derivation from the terse verses of the Vedas by commentators, using the light of knowledge of the texts derived from the Vedas. When the concept of trimUrtis, tridevis and darshanas can be derived from the Vedas and UpaniShads, why not the facts of science too?
 
Dear narayan, this is turning out to be even more laughable.

First, Sayana was giving his interpretation of rk 150.4, the rk itself says nothing about speed of anything.

Next, clearly, Sayana is talking about the speed of Sun, not light. What he says, as translated in the pdf file, "sun traverses 2,200 yojanas in half a nimisha". So to claim this is somehow about speed of light needs some molding.

Then, he cites one P.V. Vartak's book "Scientific Knowledge in the Vedas" to claim 1 yojana = 9 miles. For the moment, let us ignore the bias that is obvious from the title. Let us look at the authority for this claim that 1 yojana = 9 miles. Take a look at this site that has 8 miles to a yojana, and this Wiki article about Yojana that says there is no uniform standard. The distance of 1 yojana is anywhere between 5 to 10 miles depending on the epoch. It was apparently as little as 5 miles during the time of Aryabhatta and somewhere between 8 and 10 by the time of Sayana. So what is 1 yojana equal to, the estimate closest to Vedic times is 5 miles, and the one during the time of Sayana is 8 to 10 miles.

Next, the text cites Mahabharatha Chapter 231.12 of Santi Parva for what 1 nimisha is equal to. Here is the text:

Five and ten winks of the eye make what is called a Kashtha. Thirty Kashthas would make what is called a Kala. Thirty Kalas, with the tenth part of a Kala added, make what is known as a Muhurta. Thirty Muhurtas make up one day and night.


The starting point itself is problematic, 5 to 10 winks is Kashtha. If it is 5, then 1 nimisha = 0.637 seconds or 1.276 seconds if it is 10 winks. But, the pdf file says 1/2 a nimisha is 8/75 seconds, or 1 nimisha = 16/75 = 0.2133 seconds, nowhere near what is stated in the Mahabharatha.

Further, take a look at this blog post of Samkshepa Dharma Shastra, translated by P.R.Ramachander. On measuring time here is what this translation says:

The time taken for one blink is a Nimisham. Two nimishas make one Triti. Two Tritis make one lava. Two lavas are one Kshana. Ten Kshanas are one Kashta. Thirty Kashtas make one kala. Thirty kalas make one Muhurtha. Thirty Muhurthas are a day and a night(24 hours).


According to this calculation, 1 nimisham = 0.04 seconds which, if 1 yojana = 9 miles, would give a speed of 9,90,000 miles per second for the sun, not light :)!! Now we have four estimates, 0.637, 1.276, 0.2133, or 0.04, which is it?

To measure speed we need a standard way to measure distance and time. There is no unanimity on either. So, with so much ambiguity, we can fit anything into this commentary of Sayana.

Cheers!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
namaste Nara.

This is with reference to your post #35.

• It seems the quote I gave in my post #30 regarding the name 'Hindu' in Sanskrit texts is not from the ViShNu purANam, but from BRhaspati samhitA:

Asindo sindhu paryantham yasyabharatha bhoomikah
Mathrubhuh pithrubhoochaiva sah vai hindurithismrithaah

"Whoever considers the land of Bharatha Bhoomi between Saptha Sindhu and the Indian Ocean as his motherland and fatherland is known as Hindu."

• A related quote from the ViShNu purANam 2.3.1 says:

Uttaram yat samudrasya, Himadreschaiva dakshinam |
Varsham tad Bharatam nama Bharati yatra santatih ||

"Bharat is the name of country situated to the north of the sea and south of the Himalayas and its progeny is known as Bharati."

Other Sanskrit texts that have the name Hindu with reference the people of the land include:

Birhannaradi purANam in Hoshiarpur (Punjab):

Himalayam samarabhya yavat bindusarovaram
Hindusthanamiti qyatan hi antaraksha-rayogatah

"The country between Himalayas and Bindu Sarovar (Cape Commorin Sea) is Hindusthan derived by combining the first letter 'Hi' of Himalayas and the last compound letter 'ndu' of the word Bindu."
 
***************************************
QuickRef: Science of the ancient Hindus
***************************************
Here is a compilation from the book Hindu Achievements in Exact Science by Benoy Kumar Sarkar (published in 1918: downloadable in tiff format from Hindu Achievements In Exact Science : Kumar Sarkar.B : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive )

To facilitate easy perusal, I shall post this compilation in four or five instalments.

Arithmetic

Two foundations discovered by Hindus: the symbol of numbers (numerals as they are called) and the decimal system of notation.

• Numerals were in use in India since 3rd century BCE. They were employed in the Minor Rock Edicts of Asoka the Great (256 BCE)

• The decimal system was known to AryabhaTTa (476 CE) and Brahmagupta (598-660 CE), and fully described by BhAskarAchArya (1114).

‣ In Subandhu's vAsavadattA, a SaMskRta prose romance (550-606 CE?), the stars are described as zero.

• The decimal system was therefore known to the Hindus long before its appearance in the writings of the Arabs or Grco-Syrians.

• The Saracens learnt from the Hindus both the system of numeration and the method of computation. Alberuni (1033) wrote: "The numeral signs which we use are derived from the finest forms of the Hindu signs."

• It was probably in the 12th century that the Europeans learnt this Hindu science from their Saràcen masters.

• At the commencement of the Christian era, the Chinese "adopted the decimal system of notation introduced by the Buddhists, and changed their ancient custom of writing figures from top to bottom for the Indian custom of from left to right."

Algebra

• The mathematician who systematized the earlier algebraic knowledge of the Hindus and thus became the founder of a new science is AryabhaTTa.

• The Hindu algebra was the principal feeder of Saracen algebra through Yakub and Musa, and indirectly ifiuenced to a certain extent medieval European mathematics.

• The Hindu discoveries in algebra may be thus summarized from the recent investigatons of Nalin behari Mitra:

1. The idea of an absolutely negative quantity.
2. The first exposition of the complete solution of the quadratic equation: Brahmagupta.
3. Rules for finding permutations and combinatics BhAskara. These were unknown to the Greeks.
4. Indeterminate equations: “The glory of having invented general methods in this most subtle branch of mathematics belongs to the Indians.”
5. Indeterminate equations of the second degree.

• BhAskara invented the art of placing the numerator er the denominator in a fraction. He invented also √ (the racical sign). This was not known in Europe before Chuquet and Rudolf in the sixteenth century.

Geometry

• The earliest geometry of the Hindus is to be fouid in the shulba-sUtras of BaudhAyana and Apastamba. In these treatises, which form parts of the Vedic literature, we get the application of mathematical knowledge to the exigencies of religious life, sacrifices, rituals, construction of altars, etc.

• At this stage Hindu geometry was quite independent of Greek influence. The following are some of the problems, which were solved by the mathematicians of the Vedic cycle:

1. The so-called Pythagorean theorem: The square on the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides.

2. Construction of squares equal to the sum or difference of two squares;

3. Conversion of oblongs into squares, and vice versa;

4. Drawing of a perpendicular to a given straight line at a given point of it;

5. Construction of lengths equal to quadratic surds: The approximate value of ╥--pi.

6. Circling of squares;

7. Squaring of circles,-—”that rock upon which so many reputations have been destroyed,” both in the East and West. The earliest Hindus got ╥ = 3.0044;

8. Construction of successive larger squares from smaller ones by addition;

g. Determination of the area of a trapezium, of an isosceles trapezium, at any rate, when the lengths of its parallel sides and the distance between them are known.

• We find AryabhaTTa solving the following among other problems:

1. The area of a triangle;
2. The area of a circle;
3. The area of a trapezium;
4. The distance of the point of intersection of the diagonals of a trapezium from either of the parallel sides;
5. The length of the radius of a circle.

AryabhaTTa gave also the accurate value of ╥ (62832/20000) and the area of the circle as ╥r^2. The Saracens learnt this from the Hindus. Probably Yakub (eighth century) was the first to get it when the astronomical tables were imported to Bagdad from India. The correct value of ╥ was not known in Europe before Purhach (1423—61).

• Brahmagupta made other contributions to geometry. BhAskara (1114) summarized and methodized the results of all previous investigators, e.g., Lata, AryabhaTTa, Lalla (499), VarAhamihira (5o5), Brahmagupta, ShrIdhara (853), MahAvIra (8o), AryabhaTTa the Younger (970), and Utpala (970).

• Among BhAskara's original contributions may be mentioned the fact that he gave two proofs of the so-called Pythagorean theorem. One of them was “unknown in Europe till Wallis (1616—1793) rediscovered it.”

Trigonometry

• The mathematicians of India devised (1) the table of sines, and (2) the table of versed sines. The term 'sine' is an Arabic corruption from SaMskRta shinjini.

• The Hindu table of sines exhibits them to every twenty-fourth part of the quadrant, the table of versed sines does the same. In each, the sine or versed sine is expressed in minutes of the circumference, neglecting fractions.

• The astronomical tables of the Hindus prove that they were acquainted with th principal theorems of spherical trigonometry.

Co-ordinate Geometry

• VAchaspati (850 CE), commentator of NyAya (logic), anticipated in a rudimentary way the principle of co-ordinate (solid) geometry eight centuries before Descartes (1596—165o).

• VAchaspati’s claims are thus presented by Seal:

‣ To conceive position in space, VAchaspati takes three axes, one proceeding from the point of sunrise in the horizon to that of sunset, on any particular day (roughly speaking, from the east to the west);

‣ a second bisecting this line at right angles on the horizontal plane (roughly speaking, from the north to the south);

‣ and the third proceeding from the point of their section up to the meridian section of tho. sui on that day (roughly speaking, up and down).

‣ The position of any point in space, relatively to anothr point, may now be given by measuring distances, along these three directions, i.e., by arranging in a numerical series the intervening points of contact, the lesser distance being that which comes earlier in this serie, and the greater which comes later.

‣ The position of any single atom in space with reference to another may be inlicated in this way with reference to the three axis.

‣ But this gives only a geometrical analysis of the conception of three-dimensioned space, though it must be admitted in all fairness that by dint of clear thinking it anticipates in a rudimentary manner the foundations of solid (co-ordinate) geometry.

Differential Calculus

• BhAskarAchArya anticipated Newton (1642—1727) by over five hundred years (i) in the discovery, of the principles of differential calculus and (2) in its application to astronomical problems and computations.

• According to Seal, BhAskara’s claim is indeed far stronger than Archimedes’ to the conception of a rudimentary process of integration.

“BhAskara, in computing the instantaneous motion of a planet compare its successive positions, and regards its motion as constant during the interval (which of course cannot be greater than a truti of time, i.e., 1/3375th part of a second, though it may be infinitely less).”

This process is not only “analogous to, but virtually identical with, that of the differential calculus.” As Spottiswoode remarks, mathematicians in Europe will be surprised to hear of th.existence of such a process in the age of Ehaskara (twelfth century).
 
Last edited:
...Here is a compilation from the book Hindu Achievements in Exact Science by Benoy Kumar Sarkar (published in 1918: downloadable in tiff format from Hindu Achievements In Exact Science : Kumar Sarkar.B : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive )

Folks, the title of this thread is "Modern Science in Scriptures". None of what Saidevo cites speaks to that. Nobody denies some of our forefathers didn't just accept silly things said in "Hindu" scriptures and puranas, but used their rational mind to discover and invent many wonderful things.

To the extent our forefather advanced human knowledge the credit goes to their own rational intellect, not to the superstitious religious scriptures. One may attempt to link true scientific advancement to scriptures like Dr. Naik in the case of Islam, or speed of light in the case of Vedantam, but a critical look will show how absurd such claims really are.

Cheers!
 
Dear Sri Nara,

Our vedas say many things in the form of pithy sayings, and it requires good
knowlege of vyakaranam, nruktam, chandas ( in short all angas ) to understand
the correct import . Many scholars have done this job for us. BS and upanishads
contain many statements , which look contradictory on the face of it, but
people like Sankara and others have explained these in detail. Because
many things have not been explicitly told or explained, we can't condemn
them wholesale. This is very harsh.
 
namaste everyone.

Nara rushes in, as usual, like a child (since he means no harm to anyone he is indeed a child at heart like most of us here), shouting azhukuNi ATTam--foul play, you should speak only about the Veda-Puranas, wherever there is science there is rational mind (and verse versa?), the scriptures are filled with superstitious ideas which are absurd as ideas of science, and so on and so forth.

• The very idea of my posting the compilation is to have an overview of what the Hindus have achieved in the field of science, so our learned members here can trace the extent of their core scientific ideas to the Vedas and Puranas.

• Pure sciences, especially mathematics, is born of a disciplined mind, and who is prepared to say that our Vedic RShis lacked such a mind? Since their pursuit was Atma-darshanam, they just left the core ideas in the Vedas and UpaniShads, knowing well that in future they would be expanded into the knowledge of pure sciences and the technology of applied sciences.

• We should also remember that what we have as Vedas is only a minor percentage of the whole Vedas, the rest having been lost.

As to what extent the concept of the decimal system and zero are found in our scriptures, I have already posted a compilation here, which is useful for our purpose here:

• Some incontrovertible evidences of the origin of the concept, use and notation of zero in Hindu texts (post #8)
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/scriptures/3079-snippets-hindu-science.html

• Here is a sample extract from the article 'Mathematics in Veda' by KapAli shAstri:
Mathematics in Veda

The names for the numbers one to nine found in Rig Veda are eka, dvi, tri, chatur, pancha, shat, sapta, asta, nava. The names for ten, twenty, ....., ninety occur in RV (2.18.5-6). The intermediate numbers have appropriate names. For instance ninety-four is termed four plus ninety. Nineteen is expressed one less than twenty etc. The RV (3.9.9) has a number 3339 spelled as three thousand, three hundred and thirty nine. The RV (2.14.6) uses the word hundred thousand, the modern lakh. Many lakhs are described as hundreds of thousands in RV (1.14.7). Rig Veda has more than a hundred references to numbers.
 
Namaste Sri Saidevo,

About 10 years back, I had come across an item in internet that the distance of 93 million miles between earth and sun was known to ancient Indians. This was included in encyclopaedia Britanica or some such publication and this knowledge was classified as "fluke". At that time the sayana translation was not making rounds.

My old computer hard disk crashed and I can no longer access that article. Have you come across the article which I mention? If yes, can you please share the details.

Regards,

narayan
 
.....Our vedas say many things in the form of pithy sayings, and it requires good knowlege of vyakaranam, nruktam, chandas ( in short all angas ) to understand
the correct import .
Okay NRR sir, I will leave you guys to talk up Hindu science and Modern science in Vedas. But, before I leave, let me make one last comment here.

All this pithy sayings and insightful commentary are used to retrofit what modern science has already figured out, like reshaping one's head to fit a hat you already have. How about figuring out something new from these pithy stuff that can be useful to humanity?

People like Dr. Naik exist in all organized religions, ever so ingenious to mold and remold, but never figure out anything useful.

Cheers!
 
Kinetics

Gravity: In astronomical works, eg., of AryabhaTTa, Brahmagupta, and BhAskara, the movement of a falling body is known to be caused by gravity. They ascribed gravity to the attraction exercised by the earth on a material body. But Newton’s 'law' of gravitation was not anticipated.

Acceleration: Motion was conceived as a change of place in a particle and incapable of producing another motion; but "the pressure, impact, or other force which produces the first motion produces through that motion a samskAra or persistent tendency to motion (vega), which is the cause of continued motion in a straight line, i.e., in the direction of the first motion." A series of samskAras each generating the one that succeeded it was also conceived. Acceleration is thus logically implied in the writings of Udyotakara, a commentator of NyAya (logic).

Law of Motion: The force of samskAra (or persistent tendency to motion, i.e., vega) was known to diminish by doing work against counteracting force; and when the samskAra is in this way entirely destroyed, the moving body was known to come to a rest. Thus "vega corresponds to inertia some respects, and to momentum (impressed motion) in others. This is the nearest approach to Newton’s First Law of Motion," in the writings of Shamkara Mishra, the commentator of VaisheShika (atomistic, Democritean) philosophy.

Accelerated motion of falling bodies: PrashastapAda (4th century CE), the commentator of VaisheShika philosophy, believed that in the case of a falling body there is the composition of gravity with vega (momentum) acting in the same direction from the second instant onwards. It is as if the two motions coalesced and resulted in one. “Here is a good foundation laid for the explanation of the accelerated motion of falling bodies; but Galileo’s discovery was not anticipated as Galileo’s observations and measurements of motion are wanting.”

• Scientifically considered, Hindu ideas on Statics do not seem to have made much progress. It is interesting to observe that among the Greeks statics was more developed than dynamics. This is the exact opposite of the state of investigation in India, where motion was probably understood better than rest.

Astronomy

01. Lunar zodiac: The earliest astronomy of the. Hindus is believed to have been borrowed from th Babylonians. This consisted in the conception of the lunar zodiac with twenty-seven nakShatras (constellations). But this elementary division.of the sky, suggested by the passage of the moon from any point back to the same point, may have been original to the Hindu priests, as Colebrooke and Max Muller believe.

02. Dodecameries: AryabhaTTa knew of the division of the heavens into twelve equal nortions or 'dodecameries'. This zodiacal division ‘came down from the Babylonians to the Greeks about 700 BCE.(?). But it was only by the first century BCE that the Greeks had twelve separate signs for the twelve divisions. AryabhaTTa named the twelve divisions by words of the same import, and represented them by the figures of the same animals, as the Greeks. The Hindu zodiac, if it is foreign at all, seems thus to have been derived from the Greek, rather than from the Babylonian.

03. Rotation, 04. Eclipses: AryabhaTTa knew the truth that the earth revolves on its axis. The true cause of solar and lunar eclipses also was explained by him.

05 Epicycles: The hypothesis of the epicycles in accounting for the motions of the planets and in calculating their true places was the greatest generalization of Hipparchus. This was discovered by the Flindus also. But according to Burgess, "the difference in the clevelpoment of this theory in the Greek and the Hindu systems of astronomy precludes the idea that one of these peoples derived more than a hint respecting it from the other."

06. Annual precession of the equinoxes, 07. Relative size of the sun and the moon as compared with the earth, 08. The greatest equation of the centre for the sun: With regard to these calculations, the Hindus “are more nearly correct than the Greeks.”

09. Times of the revolutions of the planets: With regrd to these, the Hindus are "very nearly as correct" as the Greeks, "it appearing iom a comparative view of the sidereal revolutions of the planets that the Hindus are most nearly correct in four items, Ptolemy in six."

10. The determination of the lunar constants entering into the calculation of lunar periods ad eclipses reached a remarkable degree of approximation (much above Greco-Arab computations) to the figures in Laplace’s Tablcs.

The Hindus were acquainted with Greek astronomy and its merits. VarAhamihira's candid acknowledgment of the fact that this science is "well established" among the "barbarian" Yavanas (Ionlaus, ie., Greeks) leaves no doubt on the point. The only question is about the amount and period of influence.

• According to Burgess there was "very little astronomical borrowing between the Hindus and the Greeks." It is difficult to see precisely what the Hindus borrowed, "since in no case do the, numerical data and results in the system of the two peoples exactly correspond."

• A certain amount of foreign help may have given an impetus to the science in India. But the loan was thoroughly Hinduized. According to Whitney, the Indians assimilated the Greek astronomy by

(i) The substitution of sines for chords, and
(2) The general substitution of an arithmetical for a geometrical form.

On the strength of subsequent developments, Seal claims that Hindu astronomy was not less advanced than that of Tycho Brahe (1546—1601).

Physics

The problems in natural philosophy, which engaged the attention, more or less, of every thinker in India, were of the kind described below:

0i. The theory of atoms and molecular combinations.. It is generally associated with the name of KaNAda, the founder of VaisheShika philosophy. Strictly speaking, there were almost as many atomic theories as the schools of Hindu thought. One or two may be mentioned:

VaisheShika system:Atoms cannot exist in an uncombined state in creation. "The doctrine of atomism did not take its rise in Greece, but in the East. It is found in the Indian philosophy. KaNAda could not believe matter to be infinitely divisible. (Fleming’s 'Vocabulary of Philosophy'.)

Jaina system: The atoms are not only infinitesimal, but also eternal and ultimate. Atomic linking, or the mutual attraction (or repulsion) of atoms the formation of molecules was analyzed by Umasvati (50 CE), with a most remarkable effect. The Jainas hold that the different classes of elementary substances are all evolved from the same primordial atoms. "The intra-atomic forces which lead to the formation of chemical compounds do not therefore differ in kind from those that explain the original linking of atoms to form molecules."

02. General properties of matter: These were analyzed and defined not only by KaNAda and his school, but also by the Jainas, Buddhists, aid other rivals and contemporaries. A few such concepts were elasticity, cohesiveness, impenetrability, viscosity, fluidity, porosity, etc. Capillary motion was illutrated by the ascent of the sap in plants from the root to the stem, and the penetrative diffusion of liquids in porous vessels. Upward conduction of water in pipes was explained by the pressure of air.

03. The doctrine of motion: Motion was conceived in almost every school of thought as underlying the physical phenomena of sound, light, and heat. This motion was known to be not only molar and molecular, but also the subtle motion lodged in the atoms themselves, ie., the very principle of matter-stuff.

04. Time and Space: In order to be precise and definite in their calculations the Hindus coceivel infinitesimally small magnitudes of time and spate. The instruments of measurement were crude. The attempt to distinguish from one another the varying grades of "least perceptible" sound, light, heat, time, etc., has therefore to be taken for what it £s worth.

• An atom (truli) of time was regarded as equal to 1/33750th of a second.

• The thickness of the minimum visible (tRSha reNu), eg., the just perceptible mote in the sunbeam, was known to be 1/349525th of an inch.

• The size of an atom was conceived to be less than ╥.3.5^-1.2^-62 of a cubic inch. "Curiously enough, this &s fairly comparable (in order of magnitude) with the three latest determinations of the size of the hydrogen atom."

• No unit of velocity seems to have been fixed upon. But average velocity was measured in accordance with the formula v=s/t.

• These measurements were not arbitrary poetic guess-works. It is on the basis of these that a remarkably accurate measurement of the relative pitch of musical tones was made, and the instantaneous motion of a planet determined (and thus the 'principle' of the differential calculus discovered).

05. The doctrine of conservation: Both matter and energy were known to be indestructible. But though constant, they were known to be liable to addition and subtraction, growth and decay, ie., to changes in collocation. This transformation was known to be going on constantly.

The foUowing ideas about matter and energy may be gleaned from the writings of the Hindus.
(a) Heat

(i) Light and heat were known to KaNAda as different forms of the same substance.

(2) Solar heat was known to UdayaNa as the source of all the stores of heat.

(3) Heat and light rays were believed by VAchaspati to consist of very minute particles
emitted rectilineally by the substances.

(4) Rarefaction in evaporation and the phenomenon of ebullition were correctly explained by Shankara Mishra.

(b) Optics:

(i) The phenomena of translucency, opacity, shadows, etc., were explained by Udyotakara.

(2) The angle of incidence was known to be equal to the angle of reflection. This was known to the Greeks also.

(3) The phenomenon of refraction was known to Udyotakara.

(4) The chemical effects of light rays were known to Jayanta.

(5) Lens and mirrors of various kinds, spherical and oval, were used for purposes of demonstration. Light rays were focussed through a lens on a combustible like paper or straw. (The making and polishing of glass was a great industry in India. According to Pliny the best glass was that made by the Hindus.)

(c) Acoustics:

(1) Physical basis of sound: Two theories were held about the vehicle or medium of propagation. Shabara Swami knew it correctly to be the air. But Udyotakara and others knew it to be ether.

(2) Wave-motion: The sound-waves were understood by both schools. But PrashastapAda knew them to be transverse; and Udyotakara and Shabara Swami understood the transmission of sound to be of the nature of longitudinal waves.

(3) Echoes were analyzed by VijnAna-bhikShu.

(4) Sounds were distinguished according to their tones and over-tones, volume or massiveness, and quality or timbre, by BatsyAyana, Udyotakara, and VAchaspati.

(5) Musical notes and intervals were analysed and mathematically calculated in the treatises on music, eg., Sharamgadeva’s samgIta-ratnAkara ('Ocean of Music') (1210—47), Damodara’s samgIta-darpaNa ('The mirror of music') (1560—1647), etc. The relative pitch of the notes of the diatonic scale was, according to Krishnaji Ballal Deval, accurately determined.

(6) The so-called Pythagorean law of the vibration of stretched strings was known to the Hindus, viz., the number of vibrations (pitch of a note) varies inversely as the length of the string.

(7) The Hindus knew that the octave above a note has twice as many vibrations as the note itself. They had thus arrived at the octave on which modern Eur-American music is based.

(d) Magnetism:

(i) Elementary magnetic phenomena could not but be observed. The attraction of grass, straw, etc., by amber, and the movement of the iron needle townrds the magnet, were explained by Shamkara Mishra as due to adRShTa, ie., unknown cause.

(2) Bboja (1030 CE) in his directions for ship-building gave the warning that no iron should be used in holding or joining together ie planks of bottoms intended to be sea-going vessels. The fear was entertained lest the iron should expose the ships to the influence of magnetic rocks in the sea, or bring them within a magnetic field and so lead them to risks.

(3) Mariner’s compass: Mookerji points out a compass on one of the ships in which the Hindus of the early Christian era sailed out to colonize Java and other islands in the Indian Ocean. The Hindu compass was an iron fish (called in SaMskRtam matsya-yantra or fish device). It floated in a vessel of oil and pointed to the north.

(e) Electriity: Most rudimentary electrical phenomena may have been noticed by Umasvati (50 CE). His theory of atomic linking was based on the idea that the two atoms to be combined must have two opposite qualities. He believed that atoms attracted and repelled each other according as they were heterogeneous (i.e., unlike), and homogeneous (i.e., like), respectively.
 
Each time science invents or discovers something, vedists will claim it was already there in the vedas. (please note am not claiming such claims are false).

Now can anyone come up with a list of things (from the vedas) that science has not yet discovered / invented? In space crafts / aeronautics ? In genetics? Physics? Medicine? Anything really...
 
Last edited:
namaste smt. HH.

How about the nature of consciousness that our Vedas and UpaniShads define to be transcendental, but manifests as universal consciousness in the world and as the 'I' in the individuals?

This is as yet an undiscovered fact of science, which is struggling with the physical brain for an answer. There might be a day, who knows, when science would be advanced enough to go beyond the shackles of the physical.

I read somewhere that the clairvoyant and Theosophist CW Leadbeater suggested training our physicians in the art of clairvoyant consciousness to augment their research of diseases and cures. The US military is supposed to be using what it terms as 'remote viewing', which employs clairvoyants to view 'scenes' of investigations. I recently watched a lousy film titled 'Suspect Zero' on this subject, starring Ben Kingsley, who solves the murders of a serial killer using clairvoyance, but is so fed up with it that he wants someone to murder him!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Latest ads

Back
Top