Rajan P. Parrikar wrote: > > In article <ghenE3EvA4.6u1@netcom.com>, <Madhava.Kumar@lana.zippo.com> wrote: > > Modern Discoveries in Ancient Works > > =================================== > > > > By : Pujyasri Chandrasekharendra Sarasvati > > > >There are a few scientific discoveries that are not found > >mentioned in Varahamihira's "BRUhat-Samhita". > > > >How do heavenly bodies remain in the skies? How is it that > >they do not fall? Everybody thinks that it was Newton who > >found the answer to such questions. They very first stanza > >in the "Suryasiddhanta", which is a very ancient treatise, > >states that it is the force of attraction that keeps the > >earth from falling. > > > >In Sankara's commentary on the Upanishads there is a > >reference to the earth's force of attraction. If we throw up > >an object it falls to the ground. This is not due to the > >nature of the object but due to the earth's force of > >attraction. "Akrasana-sakti" is force of attraction, the > >power of drawing or pulling something. The breath is called > >"prana" goes up, "apana" pulls it down. So the force that > >pulls something downward is apana. > > > >The Acharya says that the earth has "apana-sakti". The > >Prasopanishad (3.8) states: "The deity of the earth inspires > >the human body with apana." In his commentary on this > >Sankara observes that, just as an object thrown up is > >attracted by the earth, so prana that goes up is pulled down > >by apana. This means that our Upanishads have a reference > >to the law of gravitation. > > It is true that Hindu mathematical and scientific thought has not > gotten the recognition that it merits. For instance, it is common in > certain western circles to dismiss Hindu contributions to mathematics > by saying that it didn't have the symbolic form or the rigour that the > Greeks exhibited and hence doesn't amount to very much in today's > scientific practice. Even when a seminal idea points to an Indian origin > there is a strong a priori tendency to show that it must have travelled > from Greece to India - in short, everything good in Indian heritage MUST > have had a western origin. Today, this attitude is partly born out of > superficial knowledge of Hindu contributions and partly out of a supercilious > Eurocentrism that generally pervades intellectual discourse and writing in > the west. In this particular instance the positive fallout was that it > motivated V. George to write his wonderful book "Crest of the Peacock: > Non-European Roots of Mathematics" (sadly out of print today) and also > Prof. T. Bhanu Murthy to write his monograph "Ancient Indian Mathematics." > Be that as it may, there is dire need of modern Indian intellectuals > competent in the sciences to undertake extensive study of the no-doubt > impressive contributions of their own civilization. The aim of this effort > should be to document, highlight and put on a firm footing (in modern > scientific terms) the indigenous contributions and NOT to repudiate or > diminish the worth of the impressive feats of modern western scientific > thought (universal in character today). > > Which brings me to the main purpose of this rejoinder. Such silly, sloppy > and slippery writing as witnessed in the quoted article does more harm > than good to the cause I just described. Every nugget of this flapdoodle > makes the task of the genuine conscientious student of ancient Indian > scientific/mathematical thought that much harder. For besides discrediting > legitimate Hindu achievements it also provides muscle to the perception that > the only thing we were good at was handwaving and mouthing recondite > philosophical jargon. > > See for instance how the great intellectual accomplishment that Newton's > generalization, the law of gravitation, represents is here dismissed and > substituted with a facile one or two-liner purporting to convince us > of an Indian precursor to the idea. And following that the entry of the > Upanishads as fonts and repositories of scientific knowledge. What is > conclusive from all this is the author's tenuous grasp of science and the > scientific method. Also suggestive is the author's innocence of the nature of > Upanishads themselves. The track eventually winds up trivializing the > profoundity of Upanishadic thought while simultaneously contributing zilch > to the advancement of any scientific material of historical value. > > Before I quit here's another piece of nonsense: > > >"BhoogOLa SAStra", not just "bhoo-SAStra". We have known > >from early times that the earth is a "gola", a sphere. > >we call the universe, with all its galaxies, "Brahmanda". > >It means the egg created by Brahma (the cosmig egg). An egg > >is not exactly spherical in shape, but oval. According to > >modren science the universe too is oval in shape. > > <rest deleted> > > Let us for the moment assume that you've gotten the last sentence > right. Then, quackass, modern science may tomorrow, due to newer > theoretical imperatives or fresher rounds of observation, alter its > hypothesis and propose a different shape for the universe. If it turns > out to be, say, cuboid, I can tell that Brahma ain't going to have > a very pleasant time laying those eggs. > > Regards, > > r > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Mail posts to: ghen@netcom.com : http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/
I understand the scientist, for I am one myself. Also, inner perceptions
are possible, but only if one tries this approach too. Finally please
consider, namecalling is disrespectful, and inappropriate in this news
group.
