We have been seeing some analogies between Vedanta and Science (Godel, Darwin etc). The last post showed some parallel between Newton and Upanishad and I saw couple of comments along these lines...
"If it was said in our scriptures, why were the scriptures not popular? In general, I wonder why the content of our scriptures (scientific or spiritual) have not reached the public compared to Newton's law. Is there a basic flaw in our system? If so, why don't we work towards rectifying it? Maybe we had vision, but to complement it, we need implementation too. "
I thought these are good questions and they need a separate post.
Before I take a guess into the answers, I wish to point out that these analogies were drawn just to emphasize the existing ideas in our scriptures. It was never intended to downplay modern science or anything. I really think Newton, Godel or Darwin require honor and praise as they had put forth a great deal of effort in understanding the external world. They are sages (aka wise men) and their intellectual ability surpasses normal man. So, we should never discredit them.
First Question: If it was said in our scriptures, why were the scriptures not popular?
Scriptures are different from scientific theories in the sense that they deal more with internal science than dealing with nature (there are some exceptions to this like the sankhya philosophy that discusses nature as well). The simple reason why scriptures are not so popular as science, is that, each person perceives the object of perception in his own way although the object of perception is the same. For instance, you may look at tree and notice its leaves and I may look at its bark. While both of us are looking at the tree (the object of perception being the same), what you perceive is different from what I perceive. Scriptures essentially deal more with the subject than with the object and this may differ from person to person. Generalizing the scriptures to satisfy the masses is a very difficult task although I wouldn't say it is impossible.
Second Question: In general, I wonder why the content of our scriptures (scientific or spiritual) have not reached the public compared to Newton's law.
I think modern day science is a product of the big boom that happened during the period of renaissance when several people like Newton, Leibniz, Galileo, Tycho Brahe, Kepler etc. suddenly started working on the nature. As a result things got heated up and continues till this day. While scriptures are time tested for a long time, its a fact that things are slow if they are not sudden. Anything that has a beginning in time will also have its end and the modern day science will have its culmination. Whether the culmination would mark the merging of scientific truths with the scriptures, time will only answer.
Third Question: Is there a basic flaw in our system? If so, why don't we work towards rectifying it? Maybe we had vision, but to complement it, we need implementation too.
I don't know whether its a flaw. Irrespective of whether its a flaw or not, its always good to understand and relate things. It doesn't matter whether the scriptures are true or false as long as it appeals to logic and scientific truths. In that case, I guess we should accept it. Yes, I agree implementation is good to convince the masses, but it is our internal satisfaction that's going to last.
"If it was said in our scriptures, why were the scriptures not popular? In general, I wonder why the content of our scriptures (scientific or spiritual) have not reached the public compared to Newton's law. Is there a basic flaw in our system? If so, why don't we work towards rectifying it? Maybe we had vision, but to complement it, we need implementation too. "
I thought these are good questions and they need a separate post.
Before I take a guess into the answers, I wish to point out that these analogies were drawn just to emphasize the existing ideas in our scriptures. It was never intended to downplay modern science or anything. I really think Newton, Godel or Darwin require honor and praise as they had put forth a great deal of effort in understanding the external world. They are sages (aka wise men) and their intellectual ability surpasses normal man. So, we should never discredit them.
First Question: If it was said in our scriptures, why were the scriptures not popular?
Scriptures are different from scientific theories in the sense that they deal more with internal science than dealing with nature (there are some exceptions to this like the sankhya philosophy that discusses nature as well). The simple reason why scriptures are not so popular as science, is that, each person perceives the object of perception in his own way although the object of perception is the same. For instance, you may look at tree and notice its leaves and I may look at its bark. While both of us are looking at the tree (the object of perception being the same), what you perceive is different from what I perceive. Scriptures essentially deal more with the subject than with the object and this may differ from person to person. Generalizing the scriptures to satisfy the masses is a very difficult task although I wouldn't say it is impossible.
Second Question: In general, I wonder why the content of our scriptures (scientific or spiritual) have not reached the public compared to Newton's law.
I think modern day science is a product of the big boom that happened during the period of renaissance when several people like Newton, Leibniz, Galileo, Tycho Brahe, Kepler etc. suddenly started working on the nature. As a result things got heated up and continues till this day. While scriptures are time tested for a long time, its a fact that things are slow if they are not sudden. Anything that has a beginning in time will also have its end and the modern day science will have its culmination. Whether the culmination would mark the merging of scientific truths with the scriptures, time will only answer.
Third Question: Is there a basic flaw in our system? If so, why don't we work towards rectifying it? Maybe we had vision, but to complement it, we need implementation too.
I don't know whether its a flaw. Irrespective of whether its a flaw or not, its always good to understand and relate things. It doesn't matter whether the scriptures are true or false as long as it appeals to logic and scientific truths. In that case, I guess we should accept it. Yes, I agree implementation is good to convince the masses, but it is our internal satisfaction that's going to last.
18 comments:
I agree that we did not have our "renaisance" period (we were busy fighting among ourselves and against invaders).
To an extent, I also think since the vedas were not understandable to the common man, propaganda of concepts and fundas were also difficult.
That being said and done:
What is it that prevents us NOW to discover mind-boggling and un-imaginable things? - such as cloning, quantum theory, etc. I am not knowledgable about vedas (its a shame, i know) and I don't know if all "hidden" scripts have been deciphered. How long would we be looking back to the vedas?. Is everything which is supposed to be discovered, already been mentioned in it?. Or, should someone write a new veda in an understandable manner?
Sri wonderful
Naan idha pathi ezthunamnnu irudhen, you beat me to it.
Good to see people blog on these things.
I am glad I came across your post.
We need more people like yourself,TJ,Anand.
I will blogroll you.
Really good blog here! I will be checking it again.
Check mine strawberry cheesecake recipe if you get a chance.
It is also time-dependent. Just that the world started opening up to 'ideas' and exchange of the same in the past 300-400 years that saw the globalizaiton and acceptance of physics and other science topics.
At that time, unfortunately, our subjugation at the hand of royal crown, forced us to spend our time and energy on getting freedom than popularizing our spiritual text !
Secondly, Indians have this complex of adoring whatever is non-native...how many southerners, decently educated know who is 'sri tyagaraja' ? But ask them who is mozart or beethoven and see the response.
That clearly tells you where our 'priorities' are :-)
Kasthuri,
You have simplified Newton's Theory of Gravitation to a statement by Adi Sankara to the effect that what goes up comes down.
I remember the old joke about the Namboothiri in Kerala who discovered gravitation centuries before Newton. But as opposed to an apple, a coconut fell on his head. So he couldnt see the day to write his theories down.
@ tt_giant : I think modern science should be encouraged but we cannot stick on to it as the only source of knowledge. And it is my belief that these types of relations should encourage us to decipher texts to come up with logical conclusions. In research there is no question of looking forward or backward. Its just gaining knowledge from whatever sources we come across. And I really think that scriptures can act as a valid source of knowledge. I am not even sure whether that was indeed the concept of gravity. What I am saying is that we cannot afford to ignore things just because they are primitive.
@ ganesh : Thank you so much for the encouragement. I am just putting forth some things which I find interesting.
@ anonymous : Thank you. Will check your page.
@ arvind : True. Time is a very important factor in deciding these things. This 'non-nativeness',I believe is the deep rooted complex traces back to McCauley. But we cannot be blaming the past. Hope everything is for good.
@ swami : LOL...good joke. Anyway, I guess you didn't get my post in the proper spirit. I am not simplifying anything here. If you had looked at the post carefully I had said proper credits should go to Newton. The underlying spirit of posts are that "Upanishads may also be a valid source of external knowledge". I questioning the rigidity of science as such.
DEAR kASTHURI,
YOU'VE SAID IT IN a straightforward way.
I'am again going to do some answering here
Dear TT_GIANT
nobody writes a new VEDA just like that. Just listen to some of the sections of the vedas you'll know that they are not the product of human imagination. besides the mathematical structure of the vedic literature( of which I'm no expert) suggests some organising intelligence greater than thot of an ordinary set of humans. cloning is hardly robust science. as for quantum mechanics its a wonderful field but what makes you think it was not hinted at in the upanishds- our sages were not into formalisms but their insights can always be compared to modern developments without apprehensions.
Swami:
your comments are indeed intersting in the sense that they make these debates complete. otherwise they will not stand up in any serious debate. your arguments are limited by fragmentation of ideas. where Kasthuri sees the unfragmented whole you like to stress on the fragments. why don't you agree to a debate on this? I'm sure Kasthuri will be able to deal with your questions effectively.
SARVAM SRIKRISHNAARPANAMASTHU!
Only answer for the three questions is 'just lack of belief, lack of conviction that orient is as good as or better than western theories'. This i think is an inherent humility element in our genes(?!).
Tj
you have nailed it.
Its like I would spent hours on Aristotle,Karl Marx but wouldnt give a chance to read upanishads.
Will also claims them as imaginations of some sick mind.
I getting really tired of these people.
Kasthuri:
My basic objection for your last two posts is with regard to the following sentences and what they seemed to suggest:
"Did we already know gravitation ? Probably, we didn't bother about it too much."
For me, it conveyed the meaning that, ancient Indian saints had knowledge about Gravitation but didn't care to expound on it the way Newton did. I gathered that you were claiming that Adi Sankara and the like knew Gravitation but "didn't bother" to make it a theory - as in he could have, if only he wanted to.
My objection is that you have no evidence to suggest that Adi Sankara "could have" theorized Gravitation like Newton did if only he wanted to. So the comparison based on a simple statement about "apana sakthi" to Newton's Gravitation is a little too unfair.
If your answer to this objection of mine, is that my interpretation of your statement is wrong, then we have nothing to argue about. But if you did (in any way) mean what I have said above, then you need to respond to my objection.
Hope I explained my stand.
Anand: -
Errata from prev. comment -
"If your answer to this objection of mine, is that my interpretation of your statement is wrong, then we have nothing to argue about."
SHOULD READ:
"If your answer to this objection of mine, is that my interpretation of your statement is wrong, then you need to explain where I was wrong what is the right interpretation."
u forgot the role of the british in destroying our traditional knowledge, india is said to have possessed a small pox vaccine, which the british banned caues the vaccine cause fever and shivering just after being administered, but the patient was protected from small pox!
@ tj : Yes, that's true. People agree if Schrondinger says he got his idea from Vedanta, but they seldom appreciate a vedic exponent talking about the same. That's how the state of affairs is now !
@ ganesh : If people are interested in Karl Marx or Aristotle-that's fine provided they don't criticize our theories. I would say that they are not matured enough to understand the fact that knowledge is universal and not merely retricted to modern day science or western philiosophy.
@ swami : I don't know what makes you think Sri Adi Sankara "could not have" theorized Gravitation. You don't have the evidence as well. It is like the "burden of proof" arguments between an atheist and a theist. But I *do* have some references to substantiate my view that point out the pre-existing ideas in India about Gravitation.
1. In the famous book "Lost Discoveries : The Ancient Roots of Modern Science--from the Babylonians to the Maya", the author Teresi says the following : Two hundred 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 centre. She lays her claims based on the hymns of Rig Veda.
2. Brahmagupta, in the 7th century had said about gravity that "Bodies fall towards the earth as it is in the nature of the earth to attract bodies, just as it is in the nature of water to flow".
As Anand points out you are looking into the details of gravitation but I am looking at the idea of gravitation. It is like looking into the words of Barathiyar while I am looking at his message. You are looking into the sentence in an article while I am looking at what message it conveys :-)
Well you don't have to believe in these things, but, most people in here do!
Swami, I have also answered your question about existence of God in the post "Infinite and Finite".
@ vatsan : Thanks for the info. Yeh, I guess there are several things like this which went unnoticed.
I was just next blogging in a run and came across ur blog.
It was quite interesting to read about your inferences of scriptures and its silent sound of modern science. I always believed that ancient scriptures and stories reverberated a great deal of science and moral, though not as explicit to be easy for this generation.
It looks like the language of portrayal and depictions vary from a period to another.
Will keep in track of ur blog.
If u find interesting u can always visit our blog and contribute @unitetosolve.blogspot.com
First time here...really nice posts.. Keep it going..
Random Access
The search has just begun !!!
@ unitetosolve : Thanks for your comments. I guess it takes time to appreciate the knowledge that have been handed over to us eons back. I hope more people start working on this in near future. Sure, I'll check u'r space.
@ random access : Thanks for u'r visit.
What you call the "details" of gravitation are what make Newton - Newton. It is not for his conclusion that "apple fell from tree because of gravitation" that he is known for. It is for the scientific theory that he proposed based on gravitation to explain the motion of bodies in the universe that he is known for.
Auvaiyar has this poem about Thirukkural -
"Anuvai Thulaithu Ezh Kadalai Pugatti Kuruga Tharitha Kural" - Meaning Thirukkural has the power of splitting an atom and encapsulating content worth seven oceans in it.
Just because Auvaiyar mentions atom and its splitting can we attribute atomic model and associated theories to her.
While I say all this, please note that - I am not denying that there was this ancient indian civilization that had done so many advancements in all areas of life and many could probably have been forgotten in all the later travails of india. All I am objecting to is the unreasonable exaggeration that equates a great scientific theory to a simple statement about "apana sakthi".
You have quoted a couple other instances - which are again feeble references to a concept rather than strong foundations of a theory. And my objection is towards you equating them. I am not denying that the concept did not exist. It probably did.
It is not "reasonable inference" based on the above poem to claim that Auvaiyar "could have" predicted an atomic model if only she had tried. And in the same way, I say, it is not reasonable inference to claim that indian saints knew all about gravitation long before it was discovered based on whatever you have pointed out.
Swami : You are right, Newton is known for his detailed work in Gravitation and I am not denying his credits. This is where you are going wrong. Either you are assuming I am discrediting Newton or equating gravitation with "apana-sakti". I am doing neither. If you think I am doing any one of these then I would say it is just a figment of your imagination.
To put it precisely, I am speculating. I was wondering whether there was the notion of Gravitation before Newton, that existed in India. It is as simple as that. I don't know why you are complicating this small question. To tell in terms of your Auviyar example : I am just wondering whether Auviyar knew about atoms. What is wrong with this question ? May be she knew or not. If you are not aware, this is how research is done. It starts with a speculation and ends with a conclusion. I would say by not raising such questions we are putting the entire branch of Indology into shame. I have also answered your question in the other post.
Post a Comment