PDA

View Full Version : Why is hinduism not credited?



IcyCosmic
27 May 2012, 03:23 AM
For various scientific knowledge that existed and/or was discovered by rishis prior to their 'discovery dates' made by man?

For example I am to understand that the speed of light is in the Vedas as of the 14th century

Light travels at 3 x 10^8 metres/sec

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_SKXGBUeUyQs/S4JyCRwndmI/AAAAAAAAAZs/LVl4zid8Gls/s400/Light+Sloka+Sayanacharya.jpg

"It is to be noted that the Light due to the Sun travels 2202 Yojanas in half a Nimesha''

When calculated it roughly matches the human speed of light calculation
but that was in the 19th century by Michelson and Morley, celebrated American Physicists in the 19th Century.

Is there no process to have these sort of things cross-referenced and such? I wonder

wundermonk
27 May 2012, 03:38 AM
In general, it is expecting too much of a religious text to have scientific truths. But unfortunately, many theists [mostly Muslims, but some Hindus also] do just that. The Big Bang found mention in the Vedas/Quran, the Vedas/Quran predict the speed of light, etc., etc..

If the religious texts do indeed contain scientific truths, how come it is always after scientists have figured something out are verses retrofitted to conform to the new discovery? Are there anything in the Vedas/Quran that scientists have not discovered yet but will discover at some point in time? If yes, let us hear these claims.

In any case, I am intrigued by the following in your post:


For example I am to understand that the speed of light is in the Vedas as of the 14th century

14th century? Also, what is the verse that you have imaged in your post? I believe it may be an astronomical text authored by Aryabhatta (?) and not the Vedas. But I could be wrong.

IcyCosmic
27 May 2012, 03:46 AM
Wunder, I'm aware of that. You can't compare hinduism to the qu'ran though the quotes that muslims use can't be compared they are usually just things like the 'nights will go dark and the moon will split' the ones found in hindu scriptures are usually respected by many physicists as holding much weight whereas as you said in the qu'ran its usually the other way around ofcourse hindus do it too.

Yes, that is from, Saint Sayanacharya (c.1300's), he gave that comment after reading the Rig Veda I believe; I wasn't talking about this example in specific it was merely a thought since this would obviously not get credited, but there are other things and evidences in hinduism which were far before their time in mankind...so why not even the slight credit within education facilities, that these ideas were mentioned in the ancient indian scriptures?

wundermonk
27 May 2012, 04:02 AM
Okay...I actually was able to track this down. Here is the calculation.

1 Yojana = 8000 human heights.

1 human height = 1.7 metres [approx]

Therefore, 1 Yojana = 1.7 m * 8000 = 13600 metres.

1 Nimesha = 16/75 seconds.

Therefore, the speed of light works out to be 2202 Yojanas in half a Nimesha which works out to 2202*13600 / (16/2/75) = 2.80755 * 10 ^ 8 metres/second.

IcyCosmic
27 May 2012, 04:03 AM
Wow, great.

wundermonk
27 May 2012, 04:06 AM
Yes...but the catch is that I can tweak around with

1 human height = 1.7 metres ever so slightly

until I am able to pin down any desired level of precision in the speed of light :)

IcyCosmic
27 May 2012, 04:12 AM
Well it would still be very close, even the 19th century discovery is an approximation...

ahab
27 May 2012, 06:46 AM
For various scientific knowledge that existed and/or was discovered by rishis prior to their 'discovery dates' made by man?

For example I am to understand that the speed of light is in the Vedas as of the 14th century

Light travels at 3 x 10^8 metres/sec

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_SKXGBUeUyQs/S4JyCRwndmI/AAAAAAAAAZs/LVl4zid8Gls/s400/Light+Sloka+Sayanacharya.jpg

"It is to be noted that the Light due to the Sun travels 2202 Yojanas in half a Nimesha''

When calculated it roughly matches the human speed of light calculation
but that was in the 19th century by Michelson and Morley, celebrated American Physicists in the 19th Century.

Is there no process to have these sort of things cross-referenced and such? I wonder
Not only scientific knowledge the church had control over various other things and discoveries made by white christians were credited as first discoveries by man kind while other religions and cultures were suppressed as primitive and unevolved...

Maya3
27 May 2012, 07:28 AM
First of all, I really have to read the Vedas. I have a small translation of the Rig Veda (not all of it I'm sure) but I didn't think it was a really good translation.
Which translation do you recommend?

The math you are talking about is too hard for me to wrap my head around, I don't have a single mathematical understanding node in my brain. :(

I did not know that the Quran spoke of the Big Bang also, I had never heard that.



Maya

realdemigod
27 May 2012, 08:08 AM
It's not about Hinduism being credited because firstly it's bloody church and condescending attitude of westerns and secondly the people who invented and expounded many theories never cared for laurels or fame. Only the west and specifically the people who came to east to learn sciences from India, China etc., went back and falsely claimed many theories as their own. And sadly the world believes Europeans taught the world about science.

I remember in one documentary some lunkhead professor said Arabs invented 'zero'.

I believe India was a land of intellectual giants while Europeans were still barbarians and it doesn't matter if India or Hinduism is being credited or not.

IcyCosmic
27 May 2012, 09:07 AM
It matters to me, we can preach peace and not being affected or concerned with things like this...but to me, credit should go where credit is due. Period.

realdemigod
27 May 2012, 10:47 AM
Einstein supposedly got his theory of relativity idea from Vedas even there were instances in Indian scriptures where in the world of gods time travels faster than light. But if you herald to the world about this first of all people won't accept it just because of various factors for which there have been lots of debates here - 'west looking down upon east'.

Hinduism doesn't feel insecure and doesn't need prophets unlike other cults.If you want to do your part in giving credit to Hinduism, there are lots of ways in this age primarily through sharing information on internet via youtube..where in even handful people consider the possibility of whatever content you are sharing it will be a good beginning.

Jainarayan
27 May 2012, 11:14 AM
Namaste.


Einstein supposedly got his theory of relativity idea from Vedas even there were instances in Indian scriptures where in the world of gods time travels faster than light. But if you herald to the world about this first of all people won't accept it just because of various factors for which there have been lots of debates here - 'west looking down upon east'.

I did not know about what you say about Einstein, though it does not surprise me. My belief is that there are many more scientists "in the Hindu closet", as it were, who believe that ancient Hindus had a leg up on modern science milennia ago. Slowly but surely they are coming out of the closet. I'm fan of Through The Wormhole With Morgan Freeman; ideas from Hindu scriptures are often referred to as having sound basis in science.

The late Carl Sagan:





Sagan wrote frequently about religion and the relationship between religion and science, expressing his skepticism about the conventional conceptualization of God as a sapient being. For example:
"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza) and Albert Einstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein)—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#cite_note-43)

In another description of his view of God, Sagan emphatically writes:
"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."[45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#cite_note-44)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#Personal_life_and_beliefs

Quotes from scientists:



I go into the Upanishads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upanishads) to ask questions.
Niels Bohr (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr),[citation needed (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Citing_sources)]


This life of yours which you are living is not merely apiece of this entire existence, but in a certain sense the whole; only this whole is not so constituted that it can be surveyed in one single glance. This, as we know, is what the Brahmins express in that sacred, mystic formula which is yet really so simple and so clear; tat tvam asi, this is you. Or, again, in such words as "I am in the east and the west, I am above and below, I am this entire world."
Erwin Schrödinger (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger)[citation needed (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Citing_sources)]
The unity and continuity of Vedanta are reflected in the unity and continuity of wave mechanics. In 1925, the world view of physics was a model of a great machine composed of separable interacting material particles. During the next few years, Schrodinger and Heisenberg and their followers created a universe based on super imposed inseparable waves of probability amplitudes. This new view would be entirely consistent with the Vedantic concept of All in One.

Erwin Schrödinger (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger)[citation needed (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Citing_sources)]
Vedanta teaches that consciousness is singular, all happenings are played out in one universal consciousness and there is no multiplicity of selves.

Erwin Schrödinger (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger)[citation needed (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Citing_sources)]
Nirvana is a state of pure blissful knowledge.. It has nothing to do with individual. The ego or its separation is an illusion. The goal of man is to preserve his Karma and to develop it further – when man dies his karma lives and creates for itself another carrier.

Erwin Schrödinger (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger)[citation needed (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Citing_sources)]
There is no kind of framework within which we can find consciousness in the plural; this is simply something we construct because of the temporal plurality of individuals, but it is a false construction....The only solution to this conflict insofar as any is available to us at all lies in the ancient wisdom of the Upanishad.

Erwin Schrödinger (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger)[citation needed (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Citing_sources)]
The multiplicity is only apparent. This is the doctrine of the Upanishads. And not of the Upanishads only. The mystical experience of the union with God regularly leads to this view, unless strong prejudices stand in the West.

Erwin Schrödinger (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger)[citation needed (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Citing_sources)]


After the conversations about Indian philosophy, some of the ideas of Quantum Physics that had seemed so crazy suddenly made much more sense.
Werner Heisenberg (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg)[citation needed (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Citing_sources)]


The Hindu religion is the only one of the world's great faiths dedicated to the idea that the Cosmos itself undergoes an immense, indeed an infinite, number of deaths and rebirths. It is the only religion in which the time scales correspond, to those of modern scientific cosmology. Its cycles run from our ordinary day and night to a day and night of Brahma, 8.64 billion years long. Longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about half the time since the Big Bang. And there are much longer time scales still.
Carl Sagan (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan)[citation needed (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Citing_sources)]
The most elegant and sublime of these is a representation of the creation of the universe at the beginning of each cosmic cycle, a motif known as the cosmic dance of Lord Shiva. The god, called in this manifestation Nataraja, the Dance King. In the upper right hand is a drum whose sound is the sound of creation. In the upper left hand is a tongue of flame, a reminder that the universe, now newly created, with billions of years from now will be utterly destroyed.

Carl Sagan (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan)[citation needed (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Citing_sources)]
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hinduism

Maya3
27 May 2012, 11:30 AM
:)


And people question why we westerners dont take up Christianity instead!?


Maya

IcyCosmic
27 May 2012, 11:38 AM
Einstein supposedly got his theory of relativity idea from Vedas even there were instances in Indian scriptures where in the world of gods time travels faster than light. But if you herald to the world about this first of all people won't accept it just because of various factors for which there have been lots of debates here - 'west looking down upon east'.

Hinduism doesn't feel insecure and doesn't need prophets unlike other cults.If you want to do your part in giving credit to Hinduism, there are lots of ways in this age primarily through sharing information on internet via youtube..where in even handful people consider the possibility of whatever content you are sharing it will be a good beginning.

Yes, I have planned a project called the Hindu Revolution and my other three projects which are independent charities run by me which will be purely for my satisfaction. For example, homeless kids will be given books and school admission instead of meals - this way the problem can be targetted from the root...

I want to be an entrepeneur, so I want to do my part for the community, and I'm sure as per the law of karma I will get return in my actual businesses from good works with good intentions. (Not that I'm doing it for that reason).

Here are some other quotes from scientists

"To the philosophers of India, however, Relativity is no new discovery, just as the concept of light years is no matter for astonishment to people used to thinking of time in millions of kalpas, ( A kalpa is about 4,320,000 years). The fact that the wise men of India have not been concerned with technological applications of this knowledge arises from the circumstance that technology is but one of innumerable ways of applying it."

Alan Watts

While the West was still thinking, perhaps, of 6,000 years old universe – India was already envisioning ages and eons and galaxies as numerous as the sands of the Ganges. The Universe so vast that modern astronomy slips into its folds without a ripple.”

Huston Smith

"The Indians, whose theory of time, is not linear like ours – that is, not proceeding consecutively from past to present to future – have always been able to accept, seemingly without anxiety, the notion of an alternately expanding and contracting universe, an idea recently advanced by certain Western scientists. In Hindu cosmology, immutable Brahman, at fixed intervals, draws back into his beginningless, endless Being the whole substance of the living world. There then takes place the long “sleep” of Brahaman from which, in course of countless aeons, there is an awakening, and another universe or “dream” emerges. "

Nancy Wilson Ross

The Indian astronomers went even further, giving a physical reason for how the dual star or binary motion might allow the rise and fall of human consciousness to occur. They said that the Sun (with the Earth and other planets) traveled along its set orbital path with its companion start, it would cyclically move close to, then away from, a point in space referred to as Vishnunabhi, a supposed magnetic center or "grand center"

John Major Jenkins

saying there could be a timeless cycle of expansion and contraction. It’s an idea as old as Hinduism, updated for the 21st century. The theorists acknowledge that their cyclic concept draws upon religious and scientific ideas going back for millennia — echoing the "oscillating universe" model that was in vogue in the 1930s, as well as the Hindu belief that the universe has no beginning or end, but follows a cosmic cycle of creation and dissolution.

Neil Turok

"Shiva dances, creating the world and destroying it, his large rhythms conjure up vast aeons of time, and his movements have a relentless magical power of incantation. Our European allegories are banal and pointless by comparison with these profound works, devoid of the trappings of symbolism, concentrating on the essential, the essentially plastic."

Sir Jacob Epstein

'There is a striking resemblance between the equivalence of mass and energy, symbolized by Shiva's cosmic dance and the Western theory, first expounded by Einstein, which calculates the amount of energy contained in a subatomic particle by multiplying its mass by the square of the speed of light: E = mc2.


Fritjof Capra


"Two thousand years before Pythagoras, philosophers in northern India had understood that gravitation held the solar system together, and that therefore the sun, the most massive object, had to be at its center. "


Dick Teresi

ZarryT
27 May 2012, 02:08 PM
Are there anything in the Vedas/Quran that scientists have not discovered yet but will discover at some point in time? If yes, let us hear these claims.


That consciousness is the fundamental substance of physical reality.

wundermonk
27 May 2012, 02:20 PM
That consciousness is the fundamental substance of physical reality.

Is this a falsifiable claim? If yes, how?

PS: I have read Fritjof Capra's "Tao of Physics" where he makes a similar argument...but really, I find religion and science to be non-overlapping. Religion is for personal/spiritual upliftment. Spiritual upliftment/downward drift, is really not intersubjectively verifiable and it is hence beyond the realms of science.

IcyCosmic
27 May 2012, 02:24 PM
Is this a falsifiable claim? If yes, how?

PS: I have read Fritjof Capra's "Tao of Physics" where he makes a similar argument...but really, I find religion and science to be non-overlapping. Religion is for personal/spiritual upliftment. Spiritual upliftment/downward drift, is really not intersubjectively verifiable and it is hence beyond the realms of science.

Zarry told me people have the wrong approach to reading these books, as they read it like a normal book and not a spiritual text which I wholly agree with. However I think they DEFINETELY overlap god didn't give us these scriptures with an intention to give us fundamental science but there is enough in there to show that science is just gods work and to those who believe science can not be found in religious texts they shall be surprised.

wundermonk
27 May 2012, 02:28 PM
Zarry told me people have the wrong approach to reading these books, as they read it like a normal book and not a spiritual text which I wholly agree with. However I think they DEFINETELY overlap god didn't give us these scriptures with an intention to give us fundamental science but there is enough in there to show that science is just gods work and to those who believe science can not be found in religious texts they shall be surprised.

I am not arguing that spiritual truths are not truths. I personally have benefitted from delving into Hindu philosophy, reading the BG and meditation. So, it is definitely TRUTH and its epistemic status is the highest because I have directly perceived its benefits.

The point I am making is that science has absolutely nothing to say or measure about this feeling. You can plug some electrodes on your chest and on your head and view the pulse rate, etc. but that is about it.

Spirituality is not intersubjectively verifiable. If you undergo meditation and I undergo meditation, there is no way we can compare who benefitted more.

IcyCosmic
27 May 2012, 02:39 PM
I agree with you, but my point is hinduism is not creation-centric like the abrahamic religions. We do not refute science. So it would benefit those with no knowledge of Dharmic religions to know that there is a faith out there not only that works with science but HAS science, and lots of it.

ZarryT
27 May 2012, 03:05 PM
Is this a falsifiable claim? If yes, how?

The precept of natural sciences is that all phenomena in the universe can be explained in terms of physical principles.

Thus, if this is correct, consciousness can be shown to be a product of particular physical conditions. If consciousness cannot be shown in this way to be an "arising" phenomenon, then, since it is indeed a phenomenon, the alternative explanation is that it permeates all things.

sanjaya
27 May 2012, 04:31 PM
I'm all for getting more noteriety and respect for our Hindu religion, which is often misunderstood our outright ignored by Westerners. But our contributions are chiefly spiritual and not scientific, which should come as no surprise since Hinduism is a religion. As Wundermonk already stated, whenever any religious person finds an alleged scientific claim in an ancient Scripture, that claim is always reinterpreted in light of known modern scientific principles. This does great disservice to the real scientists who spent countless hours performing the experiments necessary to discover these facts. And take it from me, it does take a lot of painstaking and sometimes tedious effort to even make small advancements in science. If anyone in the 14th century knew the speed of light, I wonder why there were no 14th century lasers or radio communication. Probably because no one new to interpret the pertinent text the way some people do now.

Now, I don't mean to insult anyone who holds to this view (i.e. don't take this as a personal dig, IcySFX), but this idea that the Vedas specify the speed of light is patently absurd. Every time I've seen any claim that a religious text gives a specific numerical value to a physical constant, a long calculation with numerous questionable assumptions, both literary and mathematical, are needed to produce the desired result. Which brings me back to Wundermonk's earlier point: the interpreter already knows the right answer. One can't derive a known scientific fact from a religious text using questionable interpretations and successfully convince anyone of anything. If you want to prove that a text contains divinely inspired facts about the physical world, here's a simple challenge. Interpret the text so as to determine a currently unknown physical quantity. If you could extract the mass of the neutrino or the spectrum of the cosmic infrared background from the Vedas, I think you would more convincingly demonstrate your point. These are two currently unknown quantities which could very well be discovered in our lifetimes. Derive them before the papers are published in Physical Review or Astrophysical Journal, and I think you'll present a compelling case even to the most ardent Christian that the Vedas are highly spiritual documents.

On a historical note, I feel compelled to mention that the Michelson-Morley experiment was not intended to derive the speed of light, but rather to determine the speed of the lumniferous ether, the supposed medium through which light propagates. Actually, the null result of this experiment, coupled with the theoretical framework later provided by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, provided convincing proof that no such ether exists. But this experiment was far from a crude setup designed for rough calculations. The Michelson interferometer is capable of detecting path length differences in light beams on the order of 100s of nanometers, and the technique could be easily adapted to make high-precision measurements of the speed of light. In fact, even in the nineteenth century, such measurements were readily available. Measurements by Fizeau using a rotating wheel were able to determine the speed of light with less than a 1% deviation from the currently accepted value, and were confirmed by capacitor discharge experiments by Weber. The theory of electrodynamics relates the speed of light to physical constants related to electricity and magnetism, thus you can measure it without actually measuring the time of flight of a light wave.

Credit where credit is due, right? Nineteenth century scientists made high precision measurements of the speed of light, and those measurements came from rigorous application of the scientific method, not from opening a religious text. Many Western scientists have expressed deep respect for Hinduism because of the spritual truths our religion teaches, and perhaps our philosophy is even conducive of scientific thought. But our modern day knowledge doesn't come from casually opening Scriptures and finding obvious mentions of physical principles.

ZarryT
27 May 2012, 04:40 PM
good words about things


What's left to say is that Hinduism can be seen as neither scientific nor spiritual. Its metaphysics create a superposition under which both science and spirituality are subsumed.

Science is akin to spirituality in its form: it is an endless rabbit hole for us to adventure down for as long as we want / can / will, with ever-morphing principles and transient truths.

wundermonk
28 May 2012, 12:37 AM
The precept of natural sciences is that all phenomena in the universe can be explained in terms of physical principles.

Thus, if this is correct, consciousness can be shown to be a product of particular physical conditions. If consciousness cannot be shown in this way to be an "arising" phenomenon, then, since it is indeed a phenomenon, the alternative explanation is that it permeates all things.

Agreed with caveats. In fact, if consciousness is proven to be an emergent property of physical substances, that would amount to a defeater for Hinduism. I made a thread on that here (http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=9317).

But, it seems to me, the alternative to this is not that consciousness permeates all things, unless it is further clarified what this means.

On the one had you have Advaita that believes that everything is consciousness. OTOH, you have realist schools (Nyaya, Mimamsa) that hold that consciousness/cognition are adventitious properties of a self that arise only when the self is embodied. For them, consciousness is always intentional, i.e. of an object that is external to the subject. So, even in the absence of consciousness, the external world exists.

kallol
28 May 2012, 01:05 AM
For various scientific knowledge that existed and/or was discovered by rishis prior to their 'discovery dates' made by man?

For example I am to understand that the speed of light is in the Vedas as of the 14th century

Light travels at 3 x 10^8 metres/sec

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_SKXGBUeUyQs/S4JyCRwndmI/AAAAAAAAAZs/LVl4zid8Gls/s400/Light+Sloka+Sayanacharya.jpg

"It is to be noted that the Light due to the Sun travels 2202 Yojanas in half a Nimesha''

When calculated it roughly matches the human speed of light calculation
but that was in the 19th century by Michelson and Morley, celebrated American Physicists in the 19th Century.

Is there no process to have these sort of things cross-referenced and such? I wonder

For most of us the religion or Sanatana Dharma is a mystical theory, which has to be believed.

For the people who found the TRUTH, it is the highest level of SCIENCE, which transcends time.

Our science is only a few steps in that direction.

Once we take the Sanatana Dharma as highest level science, then all the past, present and future discoveries become part of it.

Mind being the greatest lab for the discoveries of the elements of science, it is no wonder that our greatest scientists (so call saints or spiritual scientists) could identify the twin star Arundhati-Vaishista as unique, etc.

We have over the time relied more on the five external senses and externals labs and thereby lost the infinite capability of mind.

Till we take the Sanatana Dharma as the ultimate science, we will continue beating around the bush

Maya3
28 May 2012, 07:59 AM
I agree with you, but my point is hinduism is not creation-centric like the abrahamic religions. We do not refute science. So it would benefit those with no knowledge of Dharmic religions to know that there is a faith out there not only that works with science but HAS science, and lots of it.

I agree with this. Personally I could not believe if it contradicted Science. We have come to far with our knowledge of ourselves and our universe that religion has to correspond. It just become silly not to believe in science and insist that the world is 7000 years old like some Christians do.

Maya

Maya3
28 May 2012, 08:24 AM
But our contributions are chiefly spiritual and not scientific, which should come as no surprise since Hinduism is a religion. As Wundermonk already stated, whenever any religious person finds an alleged scientific claim in an ancient Scripture, that claim is always reinterpreted in light of known modern scientific principles. This does great disservice to the real scientists who spent countless hours performing the experiments necessary to discover these facts. And take it from me, it does take a lot of painstaking and sometimes tedious effort to even make small advancements in science. If anyone in the 14th century knew the speed of light, I wonder why there were no 14th century lasers or radio communication. Probably because no one new to interpret the pertinent text the way some people do now.

I agree with this too actually.
I did not mean to say that the rishis and swamis from long ago had it figured out perfectly like a scientist who has spent a lifetime studying.
BUT what is wonderful is that it is similar enough, and corresponds enough so that we can see that those rishis were actually on the right track. And we can take comfort in that it is not completely contradictory. Again, we don't think that the world is 7000 years old, we dont think that God created Adam and Eve and they walked around with dinosaurs, or that God sat on a chair and created the world whole that one time and that's that.

Maya

sanjaya
29 May 2012, 12:49 AM
What's left to say is that Hinduism can be seen as neither scientific nor spiritual. Its metaphysics create a superposition under which both science and spirituality are subsumed.

Science is akin to spirituality in its form: it is an endless rabbit hole for us to adventure down for as long as we want / can / will, with ever-morphing principles and transient truths.

Yes, I think this is a good way to put it. I can certainly get onboard with the idea that Hinduism teaches accurate ontological truths about the universe. I certainly don't believe that it gives any meaningful physical information (i.e. the speed of light), but there are equally important truths that cannot be arrived at via the scientific method, and I think this is where Hindu philosophy is most applicable.


I agree with this too actually.
I did not mean to say that the rishis and swamis from long ago had it figured out perfectly like a scientist who has spent a lifetime studying.
BUT what is wonderful is that it is similar enough, and corresponds enough so that we can see that those rishis were actually on the right track. And we can take comfort in that it is not completely contradictory. Again, we don't think that the world is 7000 years old, we dont think that God created Adam and Eve and they walked around with dinosaurs, or that God sat on a chair and created the world whole that one time and that's that.

Maya

Indeed Maya, I do find it intellectually comforting that Hinduism doesn't require us to adhere to absurd ideas concerning the age of the universe or other physically quantifiable things. But let us be honest with ourselves and not take the Vedas literally on matters in which it could be (mis)interpreted in a scientific light. For example, the Vedas correctly give the age of the universe as being on the order of 10s of billions of years. However, the Vedas also state that humans have existed for about the same period of time. Now, I have no idea how exactly to interpret this. Perhaps people lived on other planes of existence. Perhaps they lived on other planets. I really don't know; but what I do know is that human life in its current form has only existed on this earth for the last 100,000 or so years, and this is scientifically verifiable. Let us not be like the Christians and mine our Scriptures for scientific truths, cavalierly asserting scientific facts that were discovered by others with great pain using the scientific method instead of religion. No religious Scripture that I know of teaches accurate science. Thus we should see these Scriptures for what they are: religious texts meant to teach spiritual truths, penned by humans who had no concept of a scientific method.

Maya3
29 May 2012, 07:17 AM
Sanjaya,



Indeed Maya, I do find it intellectually comforting that Hinduism doesn't require us to adhere to absurd ideas concerning the age of the universe or other physically quantifiable things. But let us be honest with ourselves and not take the Vedas literally on matters in which it could be (mis)interpreted in a scientific light. For example, the Vedas correctly give the age of the universe as being on the order of 10s of billions of years. However, the Vedas also state that humans have existed for about the same period of time. Now, I have no idea how exactly to interpret this. Perhaps people lived on other planes of existence. Perhaps they lived on other planets. I really don't know; but what I do know is that human life in its current form has only existed on this earth for the last 100,000 or so years, and this is scientifically verifiable. Let us not be like the Christians and mine our Scriptures for scientific truths, cavalierly asserting scientific facts that were discovered by others with great pain using the scientific method instead of religion. No religious Scripture that I know of teaches accurate science. Thus we should see these Scriptures for what they are: religious texts meant to teach spiritual truths, penned by humans who had no concept of a scientific method.

Yes and yes. We should not take scripture literary anyway, we have to take into context that they were written thousands of years ago. A time when people had a very limited understanding of not only how our own planet looks, but also how anything beyond their own village, and surrounding villages looked.

I agree too, that we don't have to mine our scriptures for scientific truths. But I do think that it wont hurt to point out that our religion have a wider concept of how the universe look and that it goes more in line with what the scientific community has figured out.
That doesn't mean that we should disregard science and tell them to look at our scriptures instead.
It means that we should look at science, take it seriously and know that we don't have to disregard it, and know most of all that our religion is not threatened by scientific discoveries.

We don't need to panic and try to say that science is wrong and say that only our scriptures know the truth, because God said so! :)

We know that we get more and more enlightened with each life time and science is proof of that.

Maya

realdemigod
29 May 2012, 10:35 AM
IcySFX, good luck on your projects.

Shivam
29 May 2012, 11:21 AM
we should sythesise scientific temper and religious philosophy for best explanation of nature of self, we should not go for contesting science with philosophy , philosophy is the mother of science . Its our mistake to contest for who is better, it should be like "what is better in both?" and not "who is better among both?".

sanjaya
30 May 2012, 12:10 AM
we should sythesise scientific temper and religious philosophy for best explanation of nature of self, we should not go for contesting science with philosophy , philosophy is the mother of science . Its our mistake to contest for who is better, it should be like "what is better in both?" and not "who is better among both?".

I certainly would appreciate a formalism in which religion and science were perfectly harmonious. Yet the antagonism isn't purely the invention of zealots; I can't escape the fact that to some extent science and religion are at odds. The problem, I think, is that God reveals himself to whomever he wills, and such people are unable to communicate their experiences to others. Science, on the other hand, is accessible to all. Now, this alone would not be a problem. But often religion tries to explain natural phenomena, and more often than not it fails. This is true far more often of religions (erroneous religions, I think) like Christianity, but it happens from time to time in Hinduism as well. A religious experience can't be shared with others. If I experience God during meditation or puja, it is purely between me and God. But science is by nature reproducable, and there's no denying the positive effect it has on our lives. As a religious person I don't have any easy answers to this; I have faith in Bhagavan and simply trust that he will reveal himself to me if and when he chooses. Until such time, I live within the confines of God's Maya. I cannot prove my faith to anyone, and thus do not make the attempt.

If science and religion are at odds, science will almost always win, because it is well-suited to the realm of arguments and logic. My approach is simply to not introduce unnecessary conflict.

bhishma
30 May 2012, 11:50 AM
Anything and everything in hinduism was established after creative debate and supported by rational thinking. That is why sanatana dharma is very scientific and rational.

sanjaya
30 May 2012, 08:02 PM
Anything and everything in hinduism was established after creative debate and supported by rational thinking. That is why sanatana dharma is very scientific and rational.

I don't mean to say that creative debate and rational thought aren't good things, but that alone doesn't constitute science. In fact, debate isn't necessarily a prerequisite for science. The wonderful thing about science is that two people can make separate measurements, but must come to the same conclusion. This has to happen or someone has done something wrong. Often times people conduct their experiments properly, and no debate is necessary. One might say that Hinduism is conducive to scientific thought or at the very least not a hinderance (i.e. no one's going to "disprove" our religion by showing that humans evolved from simpler lifeforms and so forth). But it's quite a stretch to say that Hinduism is scientific.

TatTvamAsi
30 May 2012, 10:36 PM
Hinduism and India are not credited with some of the most seminal discoveries in the history of mankind for several reasons.

Firstly, the nonsensical field of "philosophy of science", just balderdash about the history of scientific inquiry, has been developed by the west, for the west, and of the west. Their (lack of) understanding of scientific inquiry, especially from antiquarian times, starts with the Greeks and ends with the scientists of the modern day.

Read CK Raju's works on the total fabrication of the history of scientific discovery being propagated as fact by the west.

This notion that Indians/Hindus were/are otherworldly and not practical enough to develop empirical science is absolute bunk. From developing the numeral, decimal, and binary systems, Hindus have been foremost in fields such as metallurgy, mathematics, linguistics, and astronomy.

Is science "western"? Lot of them, especially the so-called liberals, think so. :rolleyes:

Although technological advancement over the past few centuries has been the forte of Europe and then America, it was not as if the rest of the world just stood by wallowing in their mud huts.

A good example is "Newton's" law of gravity. That guy didn't "invent" gravity; it's a natural phenomenon that was formulated by him but experienced universally. Now take the numeral system; it does NOT exist in nature. It was a complete invention by the Indian mind. Yet, there is nobody "credited" for it. It isn't like we say "Aryabhatta's" zero every time we use 'zero'! We don't invoke Pingala every time the binary system is put to use. Yet, all those are absolute INVENTIONS that do deserve credit. The travesty is that westerners get credit for something that is NATURAL that is discovered while an invention by others is used without credit.

What is known as "science" today is defined as as extroverted discipline; an inquiry into the nature of reality. There is an "inner" science discovered AND invented by Indians/Hindus that is not considered 'scientific' because it is not western in origin. Now, THAT is prejudice!

Yoga is the perfect example of this; experience the nature of reality instead of just intellectually trying to understand something that is beyond the mind! That is why when QM became a big deal in the west, to the Indian mind, it was a big "meh". We are always aware that we are part of nature, not separate from it. Can this be equated to the mathematical equations of QM? Of course not. Yet, the lesson is the same. The language used to describe the phenomenon is different. That is all.

And some people in the west are trying to portray Yoga as not Hindu and saying "nobody owns it" so that they can, in the coming decades, claim that it was theirs to begin with! Thankfully, Hindus have awakened to their treachery early on! We are Indians, not RED Indians! ;)

Sahasranama
31 May 2012, 12:29 AM
The first modern airplane was made in India in 1895 based on ancient manuals of the Vimana Shashtra by the Sanskrit scholar Shivkar Bapuji Talpade and traveled 1500 feet in the air.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AA6Mdy2dEQw#!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlsilf7CijI

sanjaya
31 May 2012, 12:30 AM
TTA, we are agreed on Hindus not being sufficiently credited for mathematical inventions such as the number zero. Though I'm noticing that increasingly many are aware of this. Having said that, it's important to distinguish between Hindus inventing something, and that thing being easily derived from the Vedas.

Regarding Newton, obviously he didn't invent gravity, nonetheless its mathematical description is highly non-trivial, and I think he is rightly credited. When all is said and done, he did invent the theory of gravity, though not gravity itself. As for QM...let's not go there. It's philosophical ramifications are notable, to be sure, but not nearly as extensive as many would posit. For example, quantum mechanics does not necessarily require that humans are a part of nature. People abuse this science far more than I care for.

The idea of yoga as transcending Hinduism is certainly a form of cultural thievery in my opinion, but I think it is a separate issue from the claim (false claim, I think) that Hinduism or any other religion is scientific.

IcyCosmic
31 May 2012, 02:52 AM
TTA, we are agreed on Hindus not being sufficiently credited for mathematical inventions such as the number zero. Though I'm noticing that increasingly many are aware of this. Having said that, it's important to distinguish between Hindus inventing something, and that thing being easily derived from the Vedas.

Regarding Newton, obviously he didn't invent gravity, nonetheless its mathematical description is highly non-trivial, and I think he is rightly credited. When all is said and done, he did invent the theory of gravity, though not gravity itself. As for QM...let's not go there. It's philosophical ramifications are notable, to be sure, but not nearly as extensive as many would posit. For example, quantum mechanics does not necessarily require that humans are a part of nature. People abuse this science far more than I care for.

The idea of yoga as transcending Hinduism is certainly a form of cultural thievery in my opinion, but I think it is a separate issue from the claim (false claim, I think) that Hinduism or any other religion is scientific.

How do you define 'Science'? Our way of interpreting gods work? Humans have a habit of classifying things, 'Male' - 'Female', 'American' - 'African American'...so on and so forth. So what is science? The systematic study to explain phenomena? Explaining and identify physical and natural laws? Whatever the generalised definition may encompass - do the hindu scriptures not offer any of this knoweldge? So when compared to other religions of Abrahamic nature which are founded on purely being creation-centric, and faith; then surely one wouldn't be wrong in calling hinduism more scientific than the other world religions. What does that really mean though? It doesn't mean that Hinduism has all fundamental science and all science can be derived from it - however when contrasted to other scriptures from other faiths their is more science to be found, there is more structure and depth to be found. Every little aspect of hinduism could be objectively based on science. The Gayatri mantra, meditation, The symbol Aum (its levels of importance, symbolically, visually, sound-wise, vibration wise, chakra wise), Astrology, so on and so forth - whatever it may be. Point in hand that excluding what we parallell with general science much of hinduism even the basic things within it can be said to be scientific. So surely one can not be wrong in calling Hinduism a scientific religion. It doesn't make this individual right, but it brings validity to the view.

TatTvamAsi
31 May 2012, 03:32 AM
TTA, we are agreed on Hindus not being sufficiently credited for mathematical inventions such as the number zero. Though I'm noticing that increasingly many are aware of this. Having said that, it's important to distinguish between Hindus inventing something, and that thing being easily derived from the Vedas.

I agree with that notion. Yet, we need to approach the issue from a different angle.

Inventions in ancient India, especially theoretical ones like 'zero', were the result of deep philosophical insight into the nature of reality; that is, experiencing Hinduism (or what the Veda states). Zero was initially meant as 'purnam'; from IsAvAsyA UpaniSad that talks about the 'whole' or completeness (of Brahman). The practical purpose of that symbol being used later, mathematically speaking, was done by Aryabhatta and that had no connection to the "Veda" per se.

It is analogous to physicists discovering some aspect of nature and then engineers use that principle, or discovery, for a practical purpose. The original discovery was the result from inquiring into the nature of reality; ie practicing atma-viCArA (aka Hinduism).

If you want to look at some text and try to derive Maxwell's equations, you're going to be wasting time. I don't say such mathematical formulations exist in the Veda, or can be derived from the Veda either. The Veda talks about the completeness of the manifested reality.


Regarding Newton, obviously he didn't invent gravity, nonetheless its mathematical description is highly non-trivial, and I think he is rightly credited. When all is said and done, he did invent the theory of gravity, though not gravity itself. As for QM...let's not go there. It's philosophical ramifications are notable, to be sure, but not nearly as extensive as many would posit. For example, quantum mechanics does not necessarily require that humans are a part of nature. People abuse this science far more than I care for.

I think if we were to take mathematics as the 'language to express a phenomenon/principle', whether it is 'trivial' or not is irrelevant. Likewise, lot of Sanskrit in the Veda requires some erudition to not only understand, but to recite properly. The word 'agni' has 38 synonyms, each depending on a subset of context and usage. I agree that Newton's theories and other European mathematical derivations are indeed quite complex (don't remind me of deriving Maxwell's equations in Jackson E&M :D), yet the physical principles they describe are merely pointers to a connected whole. The question we should ask is are all these theories pointing to a picture of "our" reality (the universe we live in)? If so, how is it different/similar to that same picture described in the Veda?

One of the seminal lessons of Hindu Dharma is that the methodology of reaching a goal is ancillary to actually reaching it! That is why we do not convert others. Not all methods are correct and/or conducive to reaching that goal in a timely manner. However, that is a topic for another thread. ;)


The idea of yoga as transcending Hinduism is certainly a form of cultural thievery in my opinion, but I think it is a separate issue from the claim (false claim, I think) that Hinduism or any other religion is scientific.

In fact, I think that Hinduism is scientific for the main reason that Yoga was invented by Indians. Yoga is the 4th darSanA of the six, which means it is much older than Purva Mimamsa and Uttara Mimamsa (Vedanta by Sankara). Yoga, is the METHOD through which humans can realize (reach) the divine. It is an ontological system of philosophy that is concerned with the nature of reality and has formulated a beautifully self-contained system to experience the nature of the divine (mokSA). This is why all "religions" other than Hinduism are garbage; they are merely soteriological in philosophy, interpretation, and practice. I think this is why Hinduism is ultimately an even better "tool" to discover the nature of reality because Yoga, as was wonderfully stated by my uncle, is "ever ancient and ever new"! It has never needed to be "updated" or reformulated since its invention/discovery by our ancestors. It is as important and relevant to us today, and as effective, as it was thousands of years ago. That is truly the beauty of Sanatana Dharma; it lives up to its name! :)

For this very reason that Hinduism has a method of putting its principles into practice, to be tested again and again in the laboratory of the body and mind, Hinduism is truly scientific. It can be replicated and repeated by anyone, anywhere, and at any time (given their aptitude and predisposition towards sAdhanA). No other tradition/religion has this.

In summary, modern 'science' is the extroverted inquiry into the nature of reality. Hinduism (through Yoga), is the introverted inquiry into the nature of reality. That is why there is no conflict between "religion" and "science" in Hinduism or for Indians/Hindus!

Jainarayan
01 June 2012, 12:17 PM
Namaste all.

I am curently reading Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramahansa Yogananda. I have the book, but it is also on-line. Today I was reading chapter 8, India’s Great Scientist, J. C. Bose (http://www.ananda.org/autobiography/#chap8)

Wiki article on Jagadish Chandra Bose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagadis_Chandra_Bose). I was especially struck by this passage from Autobiography of a Yogi:



Through regular publication of the work of the Institute, these Indian contributions will reach the whole world. They will become public property. No patents will ever be taken. The spirit of our national culture demands that we should forever be free from the desecration of utilizing knowledge only for personal gain.


This passage tells me that, while India has made some of the world's greatest achievements in science and medicine (I believe that plastic surgery was performed centuries ago to repair a woman's damaged nose), India has not "advertised" itself. I think therein lies the problem of today's world having forgotten what India was and is capable of. In school we only learned of Marconi, Alexander Graham Bell and Enrico Fermi.

Just a thought prompted by a paragraph from a book; take my thoughts with a grain of salt.

Edit: Btw, the Bose Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose_Corporation), which produces audio systems was founded and is chaired by Amar Gopal Bose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amar_G._Bose). I don't think there is any familial relationship between the two Bose's but until now I did not know that the Bose Corporation was founded by an Indian-American. You just don't hear these things.

TatTvamAsi
05 June 2012, 07:48 PM
This passage tells me that, while India has made some of the world's greatest achievements in science and medicine (I believe that plastic surgery was performed centuries ago to repair a woman's damaged nose), India has not "advertised" itself. I think therein lies the problem of today's world having forgotten what India was and is capable of. In school we only learned of Marconi, Alexander Graham Bell and Enrico Fermi.

And therein lies the "problem". It is quintessentially Hindu to self-abnegate and defer to keep one's (individual/country/identity) ego in check. Yet, that has proven to be our (Indian/Hindu) greatest weakness/fault as well. This is because when you face empty vessels (that make a lot of noise), being demure and reticent about one's own achievements is mistaken for weakness and lack of enterprise etc.

The other great fault of this whole thing is that India is the only (big) country in the world to have the dubious distinction of having its history written by foreigners, who are almost always anti-Indian and anti-Hindu. This has been the case since the 17th century from Hegel onwards.

The native Americans had this similar attitude that nobody owned anything and the earth was a living being and we should all share and be happy together. See how that worked out in front of the barbarian hordes of Europe? That is exactly why Hindus must insist that their CP (cultural property/legacy) is unequivocally Indian/Hindu and nobody has the right to interpret it as they please. This is sadly happening to Yoga (at least asana or postural Yoga) in front of our eyes.

I wonder if these mlecchas who think they are doing "yoga" are aware of this(?).

devisarada
04 July 2012, 07:54 PM
....sadly the world believes Europeans taught the world about science.

I remember in one documentary some lunkhead professor said Arabs invented 'zero'.

I believe India was a land of intellectual giants while Europeans were still barbarians and it doesn't matter if India or Hinduism is being credited or not.

On one level, (our own egos) you are right. Being credited for one's accomplishments is not necessary.

On the other level. where in Western eyes we are seen as nothing but superstitious and backward idolators, a little credibility would be a good thing.

realdemigod
06 July 2012, 04:26 AM
The first modern airplane was made in India in 1895 based on ancient manuals of the Vimana Shashtra by the Sanskrit scholar Shivkar Bapuji Talpade and traveled 1500 feet in the air.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AA6Mdy2dEQw#!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlsilf7CijI

When I was in my +2 .. my Sanskrit teacher told me his friend is doing Phd. in Vimana Shastra and my teacher said.. Pushpaka Viman in our epics and scriptures was least of all the models which were there eons ago. I haven't talked to my teacher in many years but if I manage to contact him..will surely check with him on the progress his friend made.. I guess he would have finished his Phd by now :D