Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Vedic-- Science or scientific method?

[navaratna rajaramnavaratna]

 

    We should make a clear distinction between science, which is a body of knowledge and the scientific method, which is a metaphysical description (and prescription). It was formulated as a method by Francis Bacon, a contemporary of Galileo, but not a practicing scientist.

 

    It is an anachronism therefore to apply it to Veda and Vedanta and expect them to conform them to these much later ideas.

 

    Rational metaphysics which includes the scientific method is however of untold antiquity in India. Patanjali in his Yogasutra says:

 

    pratyaksha, anumaana, aagama as the basis of knowledge. (Here I limit myself to the study of physical world, which is what metaphysics is about and not the soul.)

 

    Great medieval thinkers like Shankara and Madhva went deep into metaphysical problems like the nature of reality in their Brahma-sutra Bahshya. I find all this, particularly Madhva's Tattva-viveka to be helpful in my research on quantum reality. This has generated a good deal of interest in scientific circles in the West, but scientists in India are too timid to invoke Vedanta out of fear they may lose their caste as scientists. Western scientists seem to have no such concern.

 

    The main point is we must make a distinction between primary knowledge (pratyaksha) and inferential knowledge (anumaana). The primary knowledge is called ontology and inferential knowledge is epistemology. (This is approximate.)

 

    In my work on quantum reality I have argued that the problem with quantum physics is that there is no clear separation of pratyaksha from the anumaana as there is in Relativity. This is reflected in the confused state of the postulates of quantum physics (formulated by Von Neumann). This was the starting point for John Stewart Bell and the famous theorem he discovered.

 

   The point of all this is, the issues are both subtle and complex and we should not seek simplistic answers. I hope to address some of these in my forthcoming book on the subject.

 

N.S. Rajaram

2011/1/8 narayanan er <drerna...@yahoo.com>

Respected scholars,

It is quite nice to listen to the various types of comments on the Vedas. The meaning of the word Veda has been intererpreted by grammarians on the basis of the evolutionary mechanism for words from their corresponding Verbal Roots, such as VIDL-JNAANE (vid - to know) etc.  vedyante jnaanaani ebhyah iti vedaah. etc.etc like interpretations are possible to derive them. Somebody interpret in different way that mantrabraahmanyor  vedanamadheyatvam. etc. Here, the question is how far liberal it is to interprent the mantras, when they are properly accentuated, and are intentionally as well as grammatically sound? As, I quote Patanjali:

dustah sabdah svarato varnato vaa

mithyaaproyukto na tamrthamaaha.

sa vaag vajro yajamaanam hinasti

yathendrasatruh svarato'paraadhaat.

 Then if so, who can be the aaptah to interpret the  mantras to provide an exact intended knowlege which revealed to our ancient sages?

Regards

Narayanan

---

From: P R Mukund - NanoArk <prmu...@nanoarkcorp.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, 7 January, 2011 11:16:44 PM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} ``Vedic Science''(!?)

Namaste.
I am not a Samskrita scholar. I am not scholar of the Vedas.
I have been a professor of electrical engineering, with many, many publications and chairing many international conference in my field, all over the world.
I can say this. My rudimentary understanding of what is in the Vedas has resulted in really boosting my ability to discover things in the wireless (RF)
engineering, for which the international body Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) recognized the work by awarding me the title of Distinguished
Lecturer. Just 2 months back, I was invited to give the luncheon keynote speech at the IEEE International Conference on Systems on a Chip (SOCC). I owe it all to what is in the Vedas.
I find it extremely sad that our own scholars are ridiculing what is truly our wealth that affects everything. Truly tragic.
I request the people maintaining this site to kindly remove my name from this list.
Prof. P.R. Mukund

PS: You can google search my name, and you will find thousands of hits that the "west" has raved about what "we" have done.

2011/1/7 Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com>

Thaks Dr. Jagannath! One thing that came to my notice is that the existence of the most valuable  theories of physical science (this is the only meaning of the word science known to some Vedic scientists) in the Vedas is discovered only AFTER the theory is disvcovered in the West. That the Big Bang theory exists in the Vedas comes to notice only after the theory is propounded in the West. That wireless existed is noticed after the invention of the radio comes to one's knowledge. The same is true of the Vedic television. Did any researcher of the nineteenth century note their existence in the Vedic times? Why they did not is a question. Best DB --- On Fri, 7/1/11, Jagannatha s <jgra...@gmail.com> wrote: From: Jagannatha s <jgra...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} ``Vedic Science''(!?) To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com Date: Friday, 7 January, 2011, 9:12 AM I  thank  all the scholars cordially for supporting my view. Now I would like to share three jokes. No.1 was told by Prof.Kannan, Bangalore. Both No.2 and No.3  I had heard somewhere else.   No.1.   Mr.X: You said that Veda has everything, right?   Mr.Y: Yes,  everything.   Mr.X: There is a boy namely चामि। Does your Veda have any reference of that boy?   Mr.Y: Yes, Veda does have a reference of that boy in the mantra  सत्यं त्वर्तेन परिषिञ्चामि।   No.2.   Mr.X: You said that Veda has everything, right?   Mr.Y: Yes,  everything.   Mr.X: Does your Veda have any reference of नस्य (sternutatory powder) ?   Mr.Y: Yes, Veda does have a reference of नस्य (sternutatory   powder) in the mantra  एतावनस्य महिमा   No.3. (Indian pride). In a conference of archaeologists, a research scholar told to the audience: ``I am research scholar from Babylonia. While excavating in Babylonia for research, we found wires of copper. It shows that  our forefathers were capable in sending messages through cable. '' An Indian stood up forthwith and told: ``I am research scholar from India. While excavating in India for research, we did not find any wire of any material. It shows that our forefathers were capable in sending wire-less messages! ''   S.Jagannatha. 2011/1/7 Ram Sharma <ramkara...@yahoo.com> Mahaavijnaanam amRtam VedesHu samavaapyate / YacTiiuO'nvesHaNaa Vede paNDitammanyataiva saa //       Viniito      Ram Karan Sharma   From: Jagannatha s <jgra...@gmail.com> To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, January 6, 2011 11:09:08 PM Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} ``Vedic Science''(!?) नव्यां पद्धतिमाश्रित्य नवीनं ज्ञानमाहरेत्। वृष्ट्युत्पत्तिक्रमं ज्ञातुं किमर्थं ब्राह्मणं पठेत् ? ।। यच्च ब्राह्मणवेदेषु पुराणेषु स्मृतिष्वथ। भौतिकं दृश्यते ज्ञानं तत् प्राथमिककल्पकम्।। उदाहारिषत ब्राह्म्यो वृष्टौ या ब्राह्णणस्थिताः। बोधात्तन्निःसृताद् बाला अधिकं जानतेऽधुना।। आसीत् कस्मिंस्तरे वृष्टिज्ञानं प्राचीनकालिकम्। इति चेद् वस्तु संशोध्यं पुराणे वाङ्मयेऽस्तु दृक्।। वस्तुतस्त्वधुना नव्यं ज्ञानं लब्धं नवे पथि। वेदवाक्यैर्मिश्रयित्वा सर्वं वेदस्थमुच्यते।। तन्न वेदस्य वेदत्वं तत्तु वेदावमानना। क्व च वेदस्य गाम्भीर्यं क्व संशोधकचेष्टितम् ? ।। अध्यात्मज्ञानभण्डारे वेदे सुलभमन्यतः। भौतिकज्ञानमस्तीति वादो वेदत्वभङ्गकृत्।। अङ्गीकृत्यापि तं वादं पृच्छामो नवकालिकम्। ज्ञानं किमतिशेते तन्नवज्ञानेन वा समम् ? ।। इत्थंकारं मदीया धीर्द्वयोरपि विकल्पयोः। त्याजयन्तु नवान् ग्रन्थान् सर्वान् विद्यार्थिभिर्बुधाः।। सर्वभौतिकविज्ञानजलधौ जाग्रति क्षितौ। वेदे शालासु किं ग्रन्थैरन्यैरस्तु प्रयोजनम् ? ।। 2011/1/6 iragavarapu narasimhacharya <insac...@gmail.com> महोदयाः, सादरं प्रणम्य। "ज्ञानं,विज्ञान"मिति पदद्वयविषये अहमेवमभिप्रैमि। "ज्ञानं"नाम सामान्यज्ञानम्। पदपदार्थविषयकं वस्तुगतञ्च। "अयं मेघः"इत्यादिकम्। विज्ञानं नाम "तस्य व्युत्पत्तिविषयक,तदाविष्काररूप, तदन्तर्गतभौतिकसम्बन्धि,तत्रत्य विद्युत्,तत्संग्रहणात्मकपरिशीलन,प्रयोगादि ज्ञानम्।उदाहरणं पश्यामः। उदकाद्विद्युच्छक्तिविषयकं ज्ञानम्।"कृष्णयजुर्वेदे तैत्तिरीयारण्यके चतुर्थप्रश्ने दशमानुवाके एवं वर्णितमस्ति। "अपां मध्य उद्वासयेत्।अपां वा एतन्मध्या ज्ज्योति रजायत। ज्योतिःप्रवर्गर्यः।स्व एवैनं योनौ प्रतिष्ठापयति।" "क्वेदमभ्रं निविशते?"(कृ.य.अरुणम्.८.अनु) "अभ्राण्यपःप्रपद्यन्ते"(पूर्वोक्तग्रन्थे एव)"क्वेमा आपो निविशन्ते? यदीतो यान्ति सम्प्रति।आप स्सूर्ये समाहिताः।"(पूर्वोक्तस्थले एव)"याभि रादित्य स्तपति रश्मिभि स्ताभिः पर्जन्यो वर्षति।पर्जन्येनौषधिवनस्पतयः-----इत्यादि।व्युत्पत्त्यादिविषयकपरिशीलनादिकं कर्तुं शक्यते खलु।प्रयोगस्य तु साधनान्यपेक्ष्यन्ते। परन्तु पूर्वोक्तस्थलेषु वैदिकविज्ञानमस्तीत्येवाङ्गीकर्तव्यं खलु। ज्ञान,विज्ञान विषये एष ममाभिप्रायः।या विद्या "इदमेवंरूपेण वर्तितव्य"मिति शास्ति तच्छास्त्रं भवति।उदाहरणाय,व्याकरणादिकम्। आङ्लभाषायां "nescience"इत्यस्य "अविद्या"इत्यर्थः।"science"इत्यस्य "विद्या"इत्यर्थो भवति खलु।"science"इत्यस्य "A branch of knowledge involving systematized observation,experiment and induction"इति नैघण्टुकोऽर्थोऽस्तु नाम। सोऽर्थो वैदिक,संस्कृतभाषयोरप्यन्वेति। मे मनसि यदभिप्रेतं तदुपन्यस्तम्। अन्यथा भाव्यते यदि तच्छ्रोतुमिच्छामि। अभिवन्द्य, ऐवियनाचार्यः। स्ती2011/1/6 Jagannatha s <jgra...@gmail.com>: > आर्याः, स्वस्ति। > > वैदिकं विज्ञानमिति यद् वर्तते शब्दद्वयं सांप्रतिकैः संशोधकैरधिकतरं > प्रयुज्यमानं, तत्र मम काश्चन  संशीतयो वर्तन्ते। तस्मात् संशीतिनिवारणार्थमिदं > पृछ्यते- > > 1.किं लक्षणं वैदिकविज्ञानस्य ? > > 2.विज्ञानमिति शब्दः आधुनिकस्य सैन्स् इति शब्दस्यैवार्थमभिदधाति इति  चेत् > लैब्ररीसैन्स्, पोलिटिकल् सैन्स् इति शब्दद्वयस्यापि अत्रान्तर्भावनम् इष्यते > वा न वा ? ओमिति यद्युत्तरम्, एतद् द्वयमपि वैदिकविज्ञानकोट्यन्तर्गतं वा? > म्यान्युस्क्रिप्टालोजी इत्यस्य  अर्थं सैन्स् आफ् म्यान्युस्क्रिप्ट्स् इति > शब्दत्रयेण तज्ज्ञा विवृण्वन्ति। किमेतदपि वैदिकविज्ञानत्वरूपधर्मवद् > विज्ञानम्? > > 3.सैन्स् इति शब्देन किमर्थं केवलं मैक्रोबयोलजी, आस्ट्रोफिसिक्स् > इत्यादयोऽर्था गृह्यन्ते न पुनर्मीमांसाव्याकरणधर्मशास्त्रादीनि? किमेतेषु > शास्त्रेषु  विज्ञानत्वरूपधर्मो नास्ति? केरलशास्त्रपरिषदाख्यायां संस्थायां, > मलयाळम्भाषया विरचितानामाधुनिकविज्ञानग्रन्थानां प्रकाशनं क्रियत इति श्रुतं > मया। अत्र किं नाम शास्त्रत्वम्? सैन्टिफिक् लिट्रेचर् इति शब्देन > मीमांसाव्याकरणादिग्रन्थरूपमर्थं स्वीकर्तुं शक्यते वा न वा? यदि  शक्यते > किमर्थमाधुनिकसंस्कृतसंशोधकाः ऋते आयुर्वेद-ज्यौतिषाभ्यामन्यशास्त्राणां > नामोच्चारणेऽप्युदासते? यदि न शक्यते, इण्डियन् आफीस् लैब्ररी इत्यादिसंस्थासु > प्रकिटितासु हस्तप्रतिसूचीषु सैन्टिफिक् लिट्रेचर् इत्याख्ये  विभागे >  द्वैताद्वैतविशिष्टाद्वैतप्रभृतयो वेदान्ता, व्याकरणं, मीमांसेत्यादिविषयाणां > ग्रहणं क्रियत इति यच्छ्रुतं मया तत्र मया कथं मनः समाधातव्यम्? > > 4.आधुनिकं यदस्ति ज्ञानं तत् सर्वं वेदेऽस्तीति चेत् सर्वत्र शालासु केवलं वेद > एव पाठ्यत्वेन निर्धारणीयो न पुनरन्यग्रन्थाः। किमर्थं वेदिक् सैन्स् इति > शब्दस्यासकृत् घोषणया आत्माऽऽयास्यते वृथा? > > 5.सर्वं वेदेऽस्तीति भावनया यद्यहम् अग्निमीळे पुरोहितमित्यस्मिन् मन्त्रे > अग्निरिति शब्दस्य कम्प्रेस्ड् एनर्जी इत्यर्थं कल्पयामि, तत्तु स्यान्ममैकस्य > संतोषाय। परन्तु किमनेन असंभव-संप्रदायविरोधौ न प्रसज्येयाताम्? अपि च > भक्षितेऽपि लशुने न शान्तो व्याधिरिति न्यायापत्तिः। तथा हि। यदि मया अग्निरिति > शब्दस्य कम्प्रेस्ड् एनर्जी इति अर्थः क्रियते, किं नाम करोतु वराकः पुरोहितः? > रत्नमिति शब्दस्य च कमर्थं निःसारयेयम्? > > 6.गृह्य-श्रौत-व्याकरण-च्छन्दो-मीमांसादिज्ञानपूर्वकं वेदज्ञानं यदविच्छिन्नं > प्रवर्तत इदानीमपि भारते,  तत्र को नाम दोषो येन वैदिक्सैन्स् इति > शब्दघोषणपूर्वकं सर्वथा अव्याप्त्यसंभवदोषदूषितानामर्थानां बलादिव > वेदमन्त्रेभ्यो निःसारणेन ऐन्स्टीन्-रुदर्फोर्ड्-प्रभृतीनामात्मनस्तृप्त्त्यै > मनोव्यायाम आरभ्यते संशोधकैः? > > 7.निरुक्तादिषु सश्रद्धमध्ययनं कुर्वाणाः किं वेदज्ञानहीनाः? वेदाध्ययनं ये > कुर्वन्ति, तेषां सर्वेषां डाल्टन्थियरी, बिग्-ब्याङ्ग्-थियरी, स्टीफन्-किङ्ग् > इत्यादीनां शब्दानां संज्ञानां च कण्ठेकरणम् आवश्यकं वा? > > 8.वेदो नाम  ज्ञानं च विज्ञानं चेति किल सर्वत्र जोघुष्यते। वैदिकं ज्ञानं > सैण्टिफिक् इति शब्देन विशेषयन्ति सांप्रतिकाः संशोधकाः। त इमे प्रष्टव्याः- > सैन्स्-ज्ञानं वैदिक् इति वक्तुं किमर्थं नोपक्रम्यते  भवद्भिः? > > 9.वेदविषयकं वाङ्मयम् अति विपुलम्। अप्रकटिता वेदाङ्गग्रन्था भूयस्या मात्रया > अधुनापि हस्तप्रतिषु वर्तन्ते। किमर्थं वैदिकसंमेलनेषु तेषां विषये > एकस्याप्यक्षरस्य नोच्चारणम्? > > 10. वस्तुतस्तु किं नाम वेदज्ञानम्? > ग्रीक्-मेसोपोटेमिया-चीना-पर्षियन्-प्रभृतिदेशान्तराणां सम्बन्धस्य > वेदमन्त्रैर्बलादानयनं वा, लक्षणाव्यापारस्यानावश्यकेनावलम्बनेन > मन्त्राणामभिधार्थतिरस्कारो वा? > > अधुना एकादशः प्रश्नः। पूर्वं पृष्टैः प्रश्नैः संबन्धमेष न दधातीति आपाततः > प्रतिभायात्। परन्तु वर्तत एव संबन्ध इति तितिक्षया चिन्तयतां ज्ञायते- > > 11.सैन्स्कान्फरेन्स्-केषु (स्वार्थिकः कप्रत्ययः) केवलसंस्कृतज्ञानां > सैन्स्ज्ञानहीनानां प्रबन्धमण्डनाय कदापि नाह्वानं दीयते। परन्तु केषुचन > स्यान्स्क्रीट्-कान्फरेन्स्-केषु(स्वार्थिकः कप्रत्ययः) > केवलमाधुनिकसैन्स्-ज्ञानयुक्ताः संस्कृतज्ञानहीनाः सादरमाहूता, > मण्डितप्रबन्धाश्च मया बहुवारं दृष्टाः। किमर्थं संस्कृतज्ञैरेतन्न केवलं > सह्यते परन्तु सकरतालं प्रोत्साह्यते च ? > > जगन्नाथः। > > -- > अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि। > ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।। > तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः। > निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.) > -- अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि। ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।। तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः। निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.) -- अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि। ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।। तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः। निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.) -- अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि। ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।। तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः। निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.) -- अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि। ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।। तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः। निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)

--
अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।
ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः।
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)

--
P.R. Mukund, Ph.D.
President & CEO
NanoArk Corporation
6605 Pittsford-Palmyra Road, Suite E-5
Fairport, NY 14450
Phone: (585) 223-4334, ext. 18
e-mail: prmu...@nanoarkcorp.com
URL: www.nanoarkcorp.com

--
अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।
ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः।
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)

--
अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।
ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः।
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)

[S. Kalyanaraman]

Thanks, Dr. Rajaram ji for a lucid exposition of method in research.

I had penned a note on tantrayukti तंत्रयुक्ति in 2005. This was in the context of Bharatiya knowledge systems offering a research method which is as valid as the western 'scientific method'. It is at http://www.docstoc.com/docs/68891198/researchmethod-_1_

dhanyosmi.

kalyanaraman

2011/1/8 navaratna rajaramnavaratna <rajaramn...@gmail.com>

[Dr. S. Ramakrishna Sharma]

Respected Dr S Kalyanaraman Ji,

A timely click-and-share link.
The Vaidika SamshodhanaavidhaanaM under preparation
for the Veda Vidya Conference is gathering precision by
such inputs, besides other BVP posts on related issues.

Thanks a lot.

2011/1/9 S. Kalyanaraman <kaly...@gmail.com>

--
Aangirasa/Dr.S.Ramakrishna Sharma. M.A.,Ph.D.(Eng.Lit.),Ph.D.(Sanskrit.).

[navaratna rajaramnavaratna]

 

    I thank the members for raising these questions. I am currently working on a book on Reality in Vedanta and Quantum Physics,  where these ideas are relevant and will be dicussed. At a metaphysical level, Vedanta and the scientific method are compatible as long as we remain in the non-theistic level. The question is the role of theism.

 

    Some of these questions will be addressed in the forthcoming International Vedanta Symposium to be held on July 6 and 7 at the Center for Indic Studies, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, USA.

 

    This will be followed by an International Symposium on the origins of Civilization on July 8 and 9.

 

    Please go to the Center for Indic Studies, University of Massachusetts for details.

 

N.S. Rajaram

2011/1/10 Dr. S. Ramakrishna Sharma <d.ramak...@gmail.com>

[Ganesh R]

Dear Rajaram sir,

You have hit at the right point. The problem of theism has to seriously analyzed. If not most of our pursuits in science will go wrong. I am very eager to read your paper. Pls mail that to after its completion.

regards

ganesh

 

2011/1/11 navaratna rajaramnavaratna <rajaramn...@gmail.com>

[Raghavendra]

Dear Scholars,

I have read postings on the issue of Veda and science with lot of curiosity and attention. Scholar members who have been writing on this issue have argued quite a bit on whether or not Veda is scintific. While some have written in favour; others against it. There are some who want theism aspect of veda not to be considered. Their argument is that theism of Veda / Vedanta poses a problem in evaluation process with respect to Veda / vedanta is sceience or not. This idea seems to stem from narrow thinking and a decided predilection towards not accepting theism as the essence of Vedas / Vedanta. The moment we accept theism then the natural fall out is that "reality" of everthing else needs to be accepted which is a *bete-noeir* for some. I do not really understand *theism averse approach* of the so called men of modern day science. Theism is the *essence* of the soil we are made up of here in this great nation and without it everthing will be a *naught*

Thanks and regards

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:32:44 +0530 wrote

>Dear Rajaram sir,

You have hit at the right point. The problem of theism has to seriously analyzed. If not most of our pursuits in science will go wrong. I am very eager to read your paper. Pls mail that to after its completion.


regards

ganesh

 

2011/1/11 navaratna rajaramnavaratna

 
    I thank the members for raising these questions. I am currently working on a book on Reality in Vedanta and Quantum Physics,  where these ideas are relevant and will be dicussed. At a metaphysical level, Vedanta and the scientific method are compatible as long as we remain in the non-theistic level. The question is the role of theism.


 
    Some of these questions will be addressed in the forthcoming International Vedanta Symposium to be held on July 6 and 7 at the Center for Indic Studies, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, USA.

 
    This will be followed by an International Symposium on the origins of Civilization on July 8 and 9.
 
    Please go to the Center for Indic Studies, University of Massachusetts for details.
 

N.S. Rajaram


2011/1/10 Dr. S. Ramakrishna Sharma

Respected Dr S Kalyanaraman Ji,

A timely click-and-share link.
The Vaidika SamshodhanaavidhaanaM under preparation


for the Veda Vidya Conference is gathering precision by
such inputs, besides other BVP posts on related issues.

Thanks a lot.


2011/1/9 S. Kalyanaraman

Thanks, Dr. Rajaram ji for a lucid exposition of method in research.

I had penned a note on tantrayukti तंतॠरयॠकॠति in 2005. This was in the context of Bharatiya knowledge systems offering a research method which is as valid as the western 'scientific method'. It is at http://www.docstoc.com/docs/68891198/researchmethod-_1_

dhanyosmi.


kalyanaraman


2011/1/8 navaratna rajaramnavaratna

 
    We should make a clear distinction between science, which is a body of knowledge and the scientific method, which is a metaphysical description (and prescription). It was formulated as a method by Francis Bacon, a contemporary of Galileo, but not a practicing scientist.


 
    It is an anachronism therefore to apply it to Veda and Vedanta and expect them to conform them to these much later ideas.
 
    Rational metaphysics which includes the scientific method is however of untold antiquity in India. Patanjali in his Yogasutra says:
 
    pratyaksha, anumaana, aagama as the basis of knowledge. (Here I limit myself to the study of physical world, which is what metaphysics is about and not the soul.)
 
    Great medieval thinkers like Shankara and Madhva went deep into metaphysical problems like the nature of reality in their Brahma-sutra Bahshya. I find all this, particularly Madhva's Tattva-viveka to be helpful in my research on quantum reality. This has generated a good deal of interest in scientific circles in the West, but scientists in India are too timid to invoke Vedanta out of fear they may lose their caste as scientists. Western scientists seem to have no such concern.


 
    The main point is we must make a distinction between primary knowledge (pratyaksha) and inferential knowledge (anumaana). The primary knowledge is called ontology and inferential knowledge is epistemology. (This is approximate.)


 
    In my work on quantum reality I have argued that the problem with quantum physics is that there is no clear separation of pratyaksha from the anumaana as there is in Relativity. This is reflected in the confused state of the postulates of quantum physics (formulated by Von Neumann). This was the starting point for John Stewart Bell and the famous theorem he discovered.


 
   The point of all this is, the issues are both subtle and complex and we should not seek simplistic answers. I hope to address some of these in my forthcoming book on the subject.
 

N.S. Rajaram


2011/1/8 narayanan er

Respected scholars,
It is quite nice to listen to the various types of comments on the Vedas. The meaning of the word Veda has been intererpreted by grammarians on the basis of the evolutionary mechanism for words from their corresponding Verbal Roots, such as VIDL-JNAANE (vid - to know) etc.  vedyante jnaanaani ebhyah iti vedaah. etc.etc like interpretations are possible to derive them. Somebody interpret in different way that mantrabraahmanyor  vedanamadheyatvam. etc. Here, the question is how far liberal it is to interprent the mantras, when they are properly accentuated, and are intentionally as well as grammatically sound? As, I quote Patanjali:

dustah sabdah svarato varnato vaa
mithyaaproyukto na tamrthamaaha.
sa vaag vajro yajamaanam hinasti
yathendrasatruh svarato'paraadhaat.

 Then if so, who can be the aaptah to interpret the  mantras to provide an exact intended knowlege which revealed to our ancient sages?
Regards
Narayanan

From: P R Mukund - NanoArk
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com


Sent: Fri, 7 January, 2011 11:16:44 PM

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविदॠवतॠपरिषतॠ} ``Vedic Science''(!?)

Namaste.


I am not a Samskrita scholar. I am not scholar of the Vedas.
I have been a professor of electrical engineering, with many, many publications and chairing many international conference in my field, all over the world.


I can say this. My rudimentary understanding of what is in the Vedas has resulted in really boosting my ability to discover things in the wireless (RF)
engineering, for which the international body Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) recognized the work by awarding me the title of Distinguished


Lecturer. Just 2 months back, I was invited to give the luncheon keynote speech at the IEEE International Conference on Systems on a Chip (SOCC). I owe it all to what is in the Vedas.
I find it extremely sad that our own scholars are ridiculing what is truly our wealth that affects everything. Truly tragic.


I request the people maintaining this site to kindly remove my name from this list.
Prof. P.R. Mukund

PS: You can google search my name, and you will find thousands of hits that the "west" has raved about what "we" have done.





2011/1/7 Dipak Bhattacharya

Thaks Dr. Jagannath! One thing that came to my notice is that the existence of the most valuable  theories of physical science (this is the only meaning of the word science known to some Vedic scientists) in the Vedas is discovered only AFTER the theory is disvcovered in the West. That the Big Bang theory exists in the Vedas comes to notice only after the theory is propounded in the West. That wireless existed is noticed after the invention of the radio comes to one's knowledge. The same is true of the Vedic television. Did any researcher of the nineteenth century note their existence in the Vedic times? Why they did not is a question.


Best
DB

--- On Fri, 7/1/11, Jagannatha s wrote:


From: Jagannatha s

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविदॠवतॠपरिषतॠ} ``Vedic Science''(!?)

To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Date: Friday, 7 January, 2011, 9:12 AM

I  thank  all the scholars cordially for supporting my view. Now I would like to share three jokes. No.1 was told by Prof.Kannan, Bangalore. Both No.2 and No.3  I had heard somewhere else.
 
No.1.
 

Mr.X: You said that Veda has everything, right?

 
Mr.Y: Yes,  everything.
 
Mr.X: There is a boy namely चामि। Does your Veda have any reference of that boy?
 
Mr.Y: Yes, Veda does have a reference of that boy in the mantra  सतॠयं तॠवरॠतेन परिषिञॠचामि।

 
No.2.

 

Mr.X: You said that Veda has everything, right?

 
Mr.Y: Yes,  everything.
 
Mr.X: Does your Veda have any reference of नसॠय (sternutatory powder) ?
 
Mr.Y: Yes, Veda does have a reference of नसॠय (sternutatory
 
powder) in the mantra  ठतावनसॠय महिमा
 

No.3.
(Indian pride).
In a conference of archaeologists, a research scholar told to the audience:

``I am research scholar from Babylonia. While excavating in Babylonia for research, we found wires of copper. It shows that  our forefathers were capable in sending messages through cable. ''

An Indian stood up forthwith and told:

``I am research scholar from India. While excavating in India for research, we did not find any wire of any material. It shows that our forefathers were capable in sending wire-less messages! ''
 
S.Jagannatha.
2011/1/7 Ram Sharma

Mahaavijnaanam amRtam
VedesHu samavaapyate /
YacTiiuO'nvesHaNaa Vede
paNDitammanyataiva saa //

      Viniito
     Ram Karan Sharma
 

From: Jagannatha s
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com


Sent: Thu, January 6, 2011 11:09:08 PM

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविदॠवतॠपरिषतॠ} ``Vedic Science''(!?)





नवॠयां पदॠधतिमाशॠरितॠय नवीनं जॠञानमाहरेतॠ।
वृषॠटॠयॠतॠपतॠतिकॠरमं जॠञातॠं किमरॠथं बॠराहॠमणं पठेतॠ? ।।


यचॠच बॠराहॠमणवेदेषॠपॠराणेषॠसॠमृतिषॠवथ।
भौतिकं दृशॠयते जॠञानं ततॠपॠराथमिककलॠपकमॠ।।
उदाहारिषत बॠराहॠमॠयो वृषॠटौ या बॠराहॠणणसॠथिताः।
बोधातॠतनॠनिःसृतादॠबाला अधिकं जानतेऽधॠना।।


आसीतॠकसॠमिंसॠतरे वृषॠटिजॠञानं पॠराचीनकालिकमॠ।
इति चेदॠवसॠतॠसंशोधॠयं पॠराणे वाङॠमयेऽसॠतॠदृकॠ।।


वसॠतॠतसॠतॠवधॠना नवॠयं जॠञानं लबॠधं नवे पथि।
वेदवाकॠयैरॠमिशॠरयितॠवा सरॠवं वेदसॠथमॠचॠयते।।


तनॠन वेदसॠय वेदतॠवं ततॠतॠवेदावमानना।
कॠव च वेदसॠय गामॠभीरॠयं कॠव संशोधकचेषॠटितमॠ? ।।
अधॠयातॠमजॠञानभणॠडारे वेदे सॠलभमनॠयतः।
भौतिकजॠञानमसॠतीति वादो वेदतॠवभङॠगकृतॠ।।
अङॠगीकृतॠयापि तं वादं पृचॠछामो नवकालिकमॠ।
जॠञानं किमतिशेते तनॠनवजॠञानेन वा सममॠ? ।।


इतॠथंकारं मदीया धीरॠदॠवयोरपि विकलॠपयोः।
तॠयाजयनॠतॠनवानॠगॠरनॠथानॠसरॠवानॠविदॠयारॠथिभिरॠबॠधाः।।
सरॠवभौतिकविजॠञानजलधौ जागॠरति कॠषितौ।
वेदे शालासॠकिं गॠरनॠथैरनॠयैरसॠतॠपॠरयोजनमॠ? ।।




2011/1/6 iragavarapu narasimhacharya

महोदयाः,
सादरं पॠरणमॠय। "जॠञानं,विजॠञान"मिति पददॠवयविषये अहमेवमभिपॠरैमि।
"जॠञानं"नाम सामानॠयजॠञानमॠ। पदपदारॠथविषयकं वसॠतॠगतञॠच। "अयं


मेघः"इतॠयादिकमॠ। विजॠञानं नाम "तसॠय वॠयॠतॠपतॠतिविषयक,तदाविषॠकाररूप,
तदनॠतरॠगतभौतिकसमॠबनॠधि,ततॠरतॠय
विदॠयॠतॠ,ततॠसंगॠरहणातॠमकपरिशीलन,पॠरयोगादि जॠञानमॠ।उदाहरणं पशॠयामः।
उदकादॠविदॠयॠचॠछकॠतिविषयकं जॠञानमॠ।"कृषॠणयजॠरॠवेदे तैतॠतिरीयारणॠयके


चतॠरॠथपॠरशॠने दशमानॠवाके ठवं वरॠणितमसॠति।
"अपां मधॠय उदॠवासयेतॠ।अपां वा ठतनॠमधॠया जॠजॠयोति रजायत।
जॠयोतिःपॠरवरॠगरॠयः।सॠव ठवैनं योनौ पॠरतिषॠठापयति।"
"कॠवेदमभॠरं निविशते?"(कृ.य.अरॠणमॠ.८.अनॠ)


"अभॠराणॠयपःपॠरपदॠयनॠते"(पूरॠवोकॠतगॠरनॠथे ठव)"कॠवेमा आपो निविशनॠते?
यदीतो यानॠति समॠपॠरति।आप सॠसूरॠये समाहिताः।"(पूरॠवोकॠतसॠथले ठव)"याभि
रादितॠय सॠतपति रशॠमिभि सॠताभिः परॠजनॠयो
वरॠषति।परॠजनॠयेनौषधिवनसॠपतयः-----इतॠयादि।वॠयॠतॠपतॠतॠयादिविषयकपरिशीलनादिकं


करॠतॠं शकॠयते खलॠ।पॠरयोगसॠय तॠसाधनानॠयपेकॠषॠयनॠते। परनॠतà¥
पूरॠवोकॠतसॠथलेषॠवैदिकविजॠञानमसॠतीतॠयेवाङॠगीकरॠतवॠयं खलॠ।
जॠञान,विजॠञान विषये ठष ममाभिपॠरायः।या विदॠया "इदमेवंरूपेण
वरॠतितवॠय"मिति शासॠति तचॠछासॠतॠरं भवति।उदाहरणाय,वॠयाकरणादिकमॠ।


आङॠलभाषायां "nescience"इतॠयसॠय "अविदॠया"इतॠयरॠथः।"science"इतॠयसॠय
"विदॠया"इतॠयरॠथो भवति खलॠ।"science"इतॠयसॠय "A branch of knowledge
involving systematized observation,experiment and induction"इति


नैघणॠटॠकोऽरॠथोऽसॠतॠनाम। सोऽरॠथो वैदिक,संसॠकृतभाषयोरपॠयनॠवेति।
मे मनसि यदभिपॠरेतं तदॠपनॠयसॠतमॠ। अनॠयथा भावॠयते यदि तचॠछॠरोतॠमिचॠछामि।
अभिवनॠदॠय,
ठवियनाचारॠयः।
सॠती2011/1/6 Jagannatha s :





> आरॠयाः, सॠवसॠति।
>
> वैदिकं विजॠञानमिति यदॠवरॠतते शबॠददॠवयं सांपॠरतिकैः संशोधकैरधिकतरं
> पॠरयॠजॠयमानं, ततॠर मम काशॠचन  संशीतयो वरॠतनॠते। तसॠमातॠसंशीतिनिवारणारॠथमिदं
> पृछॠयते-
>


> 1.किं लकॠषणं वैदिकविजॠञानसॠय ?
>
> 2.विजॠञानमिति शबॠदः आधॠनिकसॠय सैनॠसॠइति शबॠदसॠयैवारॠथमभिदधाति इति  चेतà¥
> लैबॠररीसैनॠसॠ, पोलिटिकलॠसैनॠसॠइति शबॠददॠवयसॠयापि अतॠरानॠतरॠभावनमॠइषॠयते
> वा न वा ? ओमिति यदॠयॠतॠतरमॠ, ठतदॠदॠवयमपि वैदिकविजॠञानकोटॠयनॠतरॠगतं वा?


> मॠयानॠयॠसॠकॠरिपॠटालोजी इतॠयसॠय  अरॠथं सैनॠसॠआफॠमॠयानॠयॠसॠकॠरिपॠटॠसॠइति
> शबॠदतॠरयेण तजॠजॠञा विवृणॠवनॠति। किमेतदपि वैदिकविजॠञानतॠवरूपधरॠमवदà¥
> विजॠञानमॠ?
>
> 3.सैनॠसॠइति शबॠदेन किमरॠथं केवलं मैकॠरोबयोलजी, आसॠटॠरोफिसिकॠसà¥


> इतॠयादयोऽरॠथा गृहॠयनॠते न पॠनरॠमीमांसावॠयाकरणधरॠमशासॠतॠरादीनि? किमेतेषà¥
> शासॠतॠरेषॠ  विजॠञानतॠवरूपधरॠमो नासॠति? केरलशासॠतॠरपरिषदाखॠयायां संसॠथायां,
> मलयाळमॠभाषया विरचितानामाधॠनिकविजॠञानगॠरनॠथानां पॠरकाशनं कॠरियत इति शॠरॠतं


> मया। अतॠर किं नाम शासॠतॠरतॠवमॠ? सैनॠटिफिकॠलिटॠरेचरॠइति शबॠदेन
> मीमांसावॠयाकरणादिगॠरनॠथरूपमरॠथं सॠवीकरॠतॠं शकॠयते वा न वा? यदि  शकॠयते
> किमरॠथमाधॠनिकसंसॠकृतसंशोधकाः ऋते आयॠरॠवेद-जॠयौतिषाभॠयामनॠयशासॠतॠराणां


> नामोचॠचारणेऽपॠयॠदासते? यदि न शकॠयते, इणॠडियनॠआफीसॠलैबॠररी इतॠयादिसंसॠथासà¥
> पॠरकिटितासॠहसॠतपॠरतिसूचीषॠसैनॠटिफिकॠलिटॠरेचरॠइतॠयाखॠये  विभागे
>  दॠवैतादॠवैतविशिषॠटादॠवैतपॠरभृतयो वेदानॠता, वॠयाकरणं, मीमांसेतॠयादिविषयाणां


> गॠरहणं कॠरियत इति यचॠछॠरॠतं मया ततॠर मया कथं मनः समाधातवॠयमॠ?
>
> 4.आधॠनिकं यदसॠति जॠञानं ततॠसरॠवं वेदेऽसॠतीति चेतॠसरॠवतॠर शालासॠकेवलं वेद
> ठव पाठॠयतॠवेन निरॠधारणीयो न पॠनरनॠयगॠरनॠथाः। किमरॠथं वेदिकॠसैनॠसॠइति


> शबॠदसॠयासकृतॠघोषणया आतॠमाऽऽयासॠयते वृथा?
>
> 5.सरॠवं वेदेऽसॠतीति भावनया यदॠयहमॠअगॠनिमीळे पॠरोहितमितॠयसॠमिनॠमनॠतॠरे
> अगॠनिरिति शबॠदसॠय कमॠपॠरेसॠडॠठनरॠजी इतॠयरॠथं कलॠपयामि, ततॠतॠसॠयानॠममैकसॠय


> संतोषाय। परनॠतॠकिमनेन असंभव-संपॠरदायविरोधौ न पॠरसजॠयेयातामॠ? अपि च
> भकॠषितेऽपि लशॠने न शानॠतो वॠयाधिरिति नॠयायापतॠतिः। तथा हि। यदि मया अगॠनिरिति
> शबॠदसॠय कमॠपॠरेसॠडॠठनरॠजी इति अरॠथः कॠरियते, किं नाम करोतॠवराकः पॠरोहितः?


> रतॠनमिति शबॠदसॠय च कमरॠथं निःसारयेयमॠ?
>
> 6.गृहॠय-शॠरौत-वॠयाकरण-चॠछनॠदो-मीमांसादिजॠञानपूरॠवकं वेदजॠञानं यदविचॠछिनॠनं
> पॠरवरॠतत इदानीमपि भारते,  ततॠर को नाम दोषो येन वैदिकॠसैनॠसॠइति
> शबॠदघोषणपूरॠवकं सरॠवथा अवॠयापॠतॠयसंभवदोषदूषितानामरॠथानां बलादिव


> वेदमनॠतॠरेभॠयो निःसारणेन ठनॠसॠटीनॠ-रॠदरॠफोरॠडॠ-पॠरभृतीनामातॠमनसॠतृपॠतॠतॠयै
> मनोवॠयायाम आरभॠयते संशोधकैः?
>
> 7.निरॠकॠतादिषॠसशॠरदॠधमधॠययनं कॠरॠवाणाः किं वेदजॠञानहीनाः? वेदाधॠययनं ये
> कॠरॠवनॠति, तेषां सरॠवेषां डालॠटनॠथियरी, बिगॠ-बॠयाङॠगॠ-थियरी, सॠटीफनॠ-किङॠगà¥


> इतॠयादीनां शबॠदानां संजॠञानां च कणॠठेकरणमॠआवशॠयकं वा?
>
> 8.वेदो नाम  जॠञानं च विजॠञानं चेति किल सरॠवतॠर जोघॠषॠयते। वैदिकं जॠञानं
> सैणॠटिफिकॠइति शबॠदेन विशेषयनॠति सांपॠरतिकाः संशोधकाः। त इमे पॠरषॠटवॠयाः-


> सैनॠसॠ-जॠञानं वैदिकॠइति वकॠतॠं किमरॠथं नोपकॠरमॠयते  भवदॠभिः?
>
> 9.वेदविषयकं वाङॠमयमॠअति विपॠलमॠ। अपॠरकटिता वेदाङॠगगॠरनॠथा भूयसॠया मातॠरया
> अधॠनापि हसॠतपॠरतिषॠवरॠतनॠते। किमरॠथं वैदिकसंमेलनेषॠतेषां विषये


> ठकसॠयापॠयकॠषरसॠय नोचॠचारणमॠ?
>
> 10. वसॠतॠतसॠतॠकिं नाम वेदजॠञानमॠ?
> गॠरीकॠ-मेसोपोटेमिया-चीना-परॠषियनॠ-पॠरभृतिदेशानॠतराणां समॠबनॠधसॠय
> वेदमनॠतॠरैरॠबलादानयनं वा, लकॠषणावॠयापारसॠयानावशॠयकेनावलमॠबनेन


> मनॠतॠराणामभिधारॠथतिरसॠकारो वा?
>
> अधॠना ठकादशः पॠरशॠनः। पूरॠवं पृषॠटैः पॠरशॠनैः संबनॠधमेष न दधातीति आपाततः
> पॠरतिभायातॠ। परनॠतॠवरॠतत ठव संबनॠध इति तितिकॠषया चिनॠतयतां जॠञायते-
>
> 11.सैनॠसॠकानॠफरेनॠसॠ-केषॠ(सॠवारॠथिकः कपॠरतॠययः) केवलसंसॠकृतजॠञानां


> सैनॠसॠजॠञानहीनानां पॠरबनॠधमणॠडनाय कदापि नाहॠवानं दीयते। परनॠतॠकेषॠचन
> सॠयानॠसॠकॠरीटॠ-कानॠफरेनॠसॠ-केषॠ(सॠवारॠथिकः कपॠरतॠययः)
> केवलमाधॠनिकसैनॠसॠ-जॠञानयॠकॠताः संसॠकृतजॠञानहीनाः सादरमाहूता,
> मणॠडितपॠरबनॠधाशॠच मया बहॠवारं दृषॠटाः। किमरॠथं संसॠकृतजॠञैरेतनॠन केवलं


> सहॠयते परनॠतॠसकरतालं पॠरोतॠसाहॠयते च ?
>
> जगनॠनाथः।
>
> --
> अथ चेतॠतॠवमिमं धरॠमॠयं संगॠरामं न करिषॠयसि।
> ततः सॠवधरॠमं कीरॠतिं च हितॠवा पापमवापॠसॠयसि।।
> तसॠमादॠतॠतिषॠठ कौनॠतेय यॠदॠधाय कृतनिशॠचयः।


> निराशीरॠनिरॠममो भूतॠवा यॠधॠयसॠव विगतजॠवरः।। (भ.गी.)
>

--
अथ चेतॠतॠवमिमं धरॠमॠयं संगॠरामं न करिषॠयसि।
ततः सॠवधरॠमं कीरॠतिं च हितॠवा पापमवापॠसॠयसि।।
तसॠमादॠतॠतिषॠठ कौनॠतेय यॠदॠधाय कृतनिशॠचयः।

निराशीरॠनिरॠममो भूतॠवा यॠधॠयसॠव विगतजॠवरः।। (भ.गी.)



--

अथ चेतॠतॠवमिमं धरॠमॠयं संगॠरामं न करिषॠयसि।
ततः सॠवधरॠमं कीरॠतिं च हितॠवा पापमवापॠसॠयसि।।
तसॠमादॠतॠतिषॠठ कौनॠतेय यॠदॠधाय कृतनिशॠचयः।
निराशीरॠनिरॠममो भूतॠवा यॠधॠयसॠव विगतजॠवरः।। (भ.गी.)





--
अथ चेतॠतॠवमिमं धरॠमॠयं संगॠरामं न करिषॠयसि।
ततः सॠवधरॠमं कीरॠतिं च हितॠवा पापमवापॠसॠयसि।।
तसॠमादॠतॠतिषॠठ कौनॠतेय यॠदॠधाय कृतनिशॠचयः।
निराशीरॠनिरॠममो भूतॠवा यॠधॠयसॠव विगतजॠवरः।। (भ.गी.)




--
अथ चेतॠतॠवमिमं धरॠमॠयं संगॠरामं न करिषॠयसि।
ततः सॠवधरॠमं कीरॠतिं च हितॠवा पापमवापॠसॠयसि।।
तसॠमादॠतॠतिषॠठ कौनॠतेय यॠदॠधाय कृतनिशॠचयः।
निराशीरॠनिरॠममो भूतॠवा यॠधॠयसॠव विगतजॠवरः।। (भ.गी.)




--
अथ चेतॠतॠवमिमं धरॠमॠयं संगॠरामं न करिषॠयसि।
ततः सॠवधरॠमं कीरॠतिं च हितॠवा पापमवापॠसॠयसि।।
तसॠमादॠतॠतिषॠठ कौनॠतेय यॠदॠधाय कृतनिशॠचयः।
निराशीरॠनिरॠममो भूतॠवा यॠधॠयसॠव विगतजॠवरः।। (भ.गी.)

--
P.R. Mukund, Ph.D.
President & CEO
NanoArk Corporation
6605 Pittsford-Palmyra Road, Suite E-5
Fairport, NY 14450
Phone: (585) 223-4334, ext. 18
e-mail: prmu...@nanoarkcorp.com


URL: www.nanoarkcorp.com

--

अथ चेतॠतॠवमिमं धरॠमॠयं संगॠरामं न करिषॠयसि।
ततः सॠवधरॠमं कीरॠतिं च हितॠवा पापमवापॠसॠयसि।।
तसॠमादॠतॠतिषॠठ कौनॠतेय यॠदॠधाय कृतनिशॠचयः।
निराशीरॠनिरॠममो भूतॠवा यॠधॠयसॠव विगतजॠवरः।। (भ.गी.)




--
अथ चेतॠतॠवमिमं धरॠमॠयं संगॠरामं न करिषॠयसि।
ततः सॠवधरॠमं कीरॠतिं च हितॠवा पापमवापॠसॠयसि।।
तसॠमादॠतॠतिषॠठ कौनॠतेय यॠदॠधाय कृतनिशॠचयः।
निराशीरॠनिरॠममो भूतॠवा यॠधॠयसॠव विगतजॠवरः।। (भ.गी.)




--
अथ चेतॠतॠवमिमं धरॠमॠयं संगॠरामं न करिषॠयसि।
ततः सॠवधरॠमं कीरॠतिं च हितॠवा पापमवापॠसॠयसि।।
तसॠमादॠतॠतिषॠठ कौनॠतेय यॠदॠधाय कृतनिशॠचयः।
निराशीरॠनिरॠममो भूतॠवा यॠधॠयसॠव विगतजॠवरः।। (भ.गी.)




--



अथ चेतॠतॠवमिमं धरॠमॠयं संगॠरामं न करिषॠयसि।
ततः सॠवधरॠमं कीरॠतिं च हितॠवा पापमवापॠसॠयसि।।
तसॠमादॠतॠतिषॠठ कौनॠतेय यॠदॠधाय कृतनिशॠचयः।
निराशीरॠनिरॠममो भूतॠवा यॠधॠयसॠव विगतजॠवरः।। (भ.गी.)




--
Aangirasa/Dr.S.Ramakrishna Sharma. M.A.,Ph.D.(Eng.Lit.),Ph.D.(Sanskrit.).

--
अथ चेतॠतॠवमिमं धरॠमॠयं संगॠरामं न करिषॠयसि।
ततः सॠवधरॠमं कीरॠतिं च हितॠवा पापमवापॠसॠयसि।।
तसॠमादॠतॠतिषॠठ कौनॠतेय यॠदॠधाय कृतनिशॠचयः।
निराशीरॠनिरॠममो भूतॠवा यॠधॠयसॠव विगतजॠवरः।। (भ.गी.)







--

अथ चेतॠतॠवमिमं धरॠमॠयं संगॠरामं न करिषॠयसि।

ततः सॠवधरॠमं कीरॠतिं च हितॠवा पापमवापॠसॠयसि।।

तसॠमादॠतॠतिषॠठ कौनॠतेय यॠदॠधाय कृतनिशॠचयः।

निराशीरॠनिरॠममो भूतॠवा यॠधॠयसॠव विगतजॠवरः।। (भ.गी.)


#avg_ls_inline_popup { position:absolute; z-index:9999; padding: 0px 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; width: 240px; overflow: hidden; word-wrap: break-word; color: black; font-size: 10px; text-align: left; line-height: 13px;}



--
>
अथ चेतॠतॠवमिमं धरॠमॠयं संगॠरामं न करिषॠयसि।
>
ततः सॠवधरॠमं कीरॠतिं च हितॠवा पापमवापॠसॠयसि।।
>
तसॠमादॠतॠतिषॠठ कौनॠतेय यॠदॠधाय कृतनिशॠचयः।
>
निराशीरॠनिरॠममो भूतॠवा यॠधॠयसॠव विगतजॠवरः।। (भ.गी.)
>

Thanks and regards,
B. Raghavendra Vishvamitra
Bangalore

[BVP Misra]

Respected scholars,

It appears to me that much of the confusion about the contents of the Vedas as well as the other scriptures of India and their interpretation arises out of consitently overlooking the chronology of the ancient and medieval scholars of India.

For example in the letter given below it is stated "Great medieval thinkers like Shankara and Madhva ...". It begs the questions like

1. What is medieval period in BC, AD, Vikramabda, Kaliyugabda etc.?

2. When was Shankara born and when was Madhwa born?

3. Similarly when did scholars like Panini and Patanjali live?

In addition to chronology, it is important to understand the geography. 

Yours respectfully,

DDMisra                                  

 

At 10 Jan 2011 05:16:51 +0000 (UTC) from navaratna rajaramnavaratna <rajaramn...@gmail.com>:

[Arun]

India is unfortunately only country in world where hating own country
and its heritage is considered only sign of knowledge. Parody of Vedas
by Dr. Jagannatha and its appreciation by Sri Dipak Bhattacharya are
views under that category. They have not looked either into modern or
ancient astronomy and consider Vedas as verses of illiterate persons.
I am giving some examples of Vedic science much before any such
invention in western science-
(1) Measures of galaxy are given in all astronomical texts, various
places in Rigveda, kathopanishad, also. That was not known when
Einstein gave his theory of relativity in 1905/1912.
(2) In 1902, Madhusudan Ojha had written about axial rotation of
galaxy as manvantara of 30.68 crore years. He explained that human
mind is image of galaxy as number of particles are same in that (100
billions) as per Shatapatha Brahmana verses explained by Sayana also-
so the axial rotation of galaxy was called Manvantara. No. of stars in
galaxy was estimated in 1985. Till today, its rotation period is
uncertain. Rotation of sun around galactic center is estimated between
20-25 crore years-close to that figure.
(3) Vishnu purana (2/7/3-4) state 3 earth/sky pairs and state that
sizes of world structures starting from man to earth , solar system,
galaxy, universe are in same ratio of 1 crore. It is also explained in
several ways in most other puranas and 3 sky-earth pairs of vedas.
This sequence of sizes is not explained in any of 22 alternatives of
modern cosmological theories which have proliferated after strive for
Unified theory. They all assume and explain homogenous, isotropic
universe which is not seen at any scale.
(4) Size of smaller worlds are successively smaller by 1 lakh-man,
cell (Kalila), atom, nucleus, jagat particles of 3 types
(chara=lepton, sthanu=baryon, anpurva=meson). 3 more levels are stated
not discussed in modern quantum electrodynamics-(5)Deva-danava, (6)
Pitara, (7) Rishi. In this sequence, Rishi should be about 10 power 35
parts of 1 meter which is considered Planck's length in quantum
mechanics. The time taken by light rays to cross this distance has
been called Paramanu of Time in Bhagavata purana (3/11) which will be
of order of 10 power 43 parts of 1 second. that is starting point of
physics in 'Brief History of Time' by Stephen Hawkins. Needless to
say, this part was not inserted by me after reading Hawkins book. No
theory of biology, quantum mechanics explains sequence of microworlds.
(5) Kalman's Mathematical system theory assumes infinite system of
world hierarchy. That is correct for mathematical formulation, but
real world has only 13 levels of Vishva as stated above. Thus 'Vishva'
indicates number 13 in all texts of astronomy. Abstract element of
consciousness makes 14 levels of Bhutas (living beings) having mind.
So manu=14 as in 'Agni-Jihva Manvah'. This Shantipath also was not
inserted by me. As 'Vishva' means 13, Panini in his ganapatha also
has included 13 words under heading Vishva.
(6) Size of solar system in neither defined nor estimated till now.
That is clearly stated in famous verse of Rigveda not inserted by me-
Trimshat Dham Virajati, Vak patangay Dhimahi. Prati vastoh aha dyubhih
(Rigveda 10/189/3). However, its meaning needs knowledge of Dhama, and
its measure in 'aha' units. It is given in several other units in
puranas also. Measures in 6 different units have mutual difference of
10% whereas estimate of farthest Woort cloud in solar system has error
of above 50% (75000 to 150,000 AU).
(7) Till 1974, solar wind was known up to earth orbit only. Mariner
probe in 1975 showed its existence near Mars. On basis of Bhagavata
purana. Balakhilya sukta of Rigveda and Yajurveda (1/1), i calculated
it up to Uranus orbit (3000 sun diameters from sun) and was mentioned
in 3 papers published from Govt institutes of Melkote, Ujjain and
Allahabad. The issue of Melkote was 1 year later than next year's
issue and still carried editorial against it due to our natural
tendency of hating our country. In other 2 institutes, no body
understood implications and so it was published. It also calculated
60000 balakhilyas of above 135 kms size at average distance of 60 AU.
Uranus probe of 2007 found both these and then Pluto was removed from
planet list. It estimated 70000 Plutonic bodies from 45-60 AU of above
100 kms size.
(8) On earth itself mines were completely surveyed in time of Prithu.
Till today, prospecting of gold, silver is guess work only. These were
mined all over world and are mentioned in vedas.
(9) Aryabhata and Surya siddhanta have stated that north pole is in
ocean and south pole is on land mass. North pole was reached by
Admiral Peary in 1909, but in same year Bala Gangadhara Tilak had
written 'Arctic Home in Vedas'. Amundsen had visited south pole in
1931, but only in 1985, it was confirmed to be on land mass and not in
channel between 2 land masses of Antarctica.
(10) Rotation period of major axis of saturn has been stated to be 39
in 432 crore years in Surya siddhanta. Till today there is no
theoretical or experimental estimate of this figure.
(11) All puranas and astronomy texts tell about 4 points on earth
surface separated by 90 degree longitude. this is not possible without
accurate geodetic survey of earth. Valmiki Ramayana, Kishkindha kanda
(40/54, 64) tels that a 'dvara' was constructed by Brahma to mark end
of east direction. That is location of Mexican pyramid, 180 degree
east of Ujjain. That verse also was not inserted by me.
None of the arguments can convince persons ignorant of any math or
science who think that people in vedic era were more ignorant than
them and stick to hating Bharata as sole sign of learning-Arun

On Jan 18, 9:29 pm, BVP Misra <b...@india.com> wrote:
> Respected scholars,
>
>
>
> It appears to me that much of the confusion about the contents of the Vedas as well as the other scriptures of India and their interpretation arises out of consitently overlooking the chronology of the ancient and medieval scholars of India.
>
>
>

> For example in the letter given below it is stated "Great medieval thinkers like Shankara and Madhva...". It begs the questions like

>
>
>
> 1. What is medieval period in BC, AD, Vikramabda, Kaliyugabda etc.?
>
>
>
> 2. When was Shankara born and when was Madhwa born?
>
>
>
> 3. Similarly when did scholars like Panini and Patanjali live?
>
>
>
> In addition to chronology, it is important to understand the geography. 
>
>
>
> Yours respectfully,
>
>
>
> DDMisra                                  
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> At 10 Jan 2011 05:16:51 +0000 (UTC) from navaratna rajaramnavaratna <rajaramn...@gmail.com>:
>
>  
>
>     We should make a clear distinction between science, which is a body of knowledge and the scientific method, which is a metaphysical description (and prescription). It was formulated as a method by Francis Bacon, a contemporary of Galileo, but not a practicing scientist.
>
>  
>
>     It is an anachronism therefore to apply it to Veda and Vedanta and expect them to conform them to these much later ideas.
>
>  
>
>     Rational metaphysics which includes the scientific method is however of untold antiquity in India. Patanjali in hisYogasutrasays:
>
>  
>

>    pratyaksha, anumaana, aagamaas the basis of knowledge. (Here I limit myself to the study of physical world, which is what metaphysics is about and not the soul.)
>
>  
>
>     Great medieval thinkers like Shankara and Madhva went deep into metaphysical problems like the nature of reality in theirBrahma-sutra Bahshya.I find all this, particularly Madhva'sTattva-vivekato be helpful in my research on quantum reality. This has generated a good deal of interest in scientific circles in the West, but scientists in India are too timid to invoke Vedanta out of fear they may lose their caste as scientists. Western scientists seem to have no such concern.

>
>  
>
>     The main point is we must make a distinction between primary knowledge (pratyaksha) and inferential knowledge (anumaana). The primary knowledge is called ontology and inferential knowledge is epistemology. (This is approximate.)
>
>  
>

>     In my work on quantum reality I have argued that the problem with quantum physics is that there is no clear separation ofpratyakshafrom theanumaanaas there is in Relativity.This is reflected in the confused state of the postulates of quantum physics (formulated by Von Neumann). This was the starting point for John Stewart Bell and the famous theorem he discovered.

>
>  
>
>    The point of all this is, the issues are both subtle and complex and we should not seek simplistic answers. I hope to address some of these in my forthcoming book on the subject.
>
>  
>
> N.S. Rajaram
>
> 2011/1/8 narayanan er<drerna...@yahoo.com>Respected scholars,
>

> It is quite nice to listen to the various types of comments on the Vedas. The meaning of the word Veda has been intererpreted by grammarians on the basis of the evolutionary mechanism for words from their corresponding Verbal Roots, such as VIDL-JNAANE (vid- to know) etc.  vedyante jnaanaani ebhyah iti vedaah.etc.etc like interpretations are possible to derive them. Somebody interpret in different way thatmantrabraahmanyor  vedanamadheyatvam.etc. Here, the question is how far liberal it is to interprent themantras, when they are properly accentuated, and are intentionally as well as grammatically sound? As, I quote Patanjali:

>
> dustah sabdah svarato varnato vaa
>
> mithyaaproyukto na tamrthamaaha.
>
> sa vaag vajro yajamaanam hinasti
>
> yathendrasatruh svarato'paraadhaat.
>

>  Then if so, who can be theaaptahto interpret the  mantras to provide an exact intended knowlege which revealed to our ancient sages?
>
> Regards
>
> Narayanan

>
> From:P R Mukund - NanoArk <prmu...@nanoarkcorp.com>To:bvpar...@googlegroups.comSent:Fri, 7 January, 2011 11:16:44 PMSubject:Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} ``Vedic Science''(!?)
> Namaste.
> I am not a Samskrita scholar. I am not scholar of the Vedas.
> I have been a professor of electrical engineering, with many, many publications and chairing many international conference in my field, all over the world.
> I can say this. My rudimentary understanding of what is in the Vedas has resulted in really boosting my ability to discover things in the wireless (RF)
> engineering, for which the international body Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) recognized the work by awarding me the title of Distinguished
> Lecturer. Just 2 months back, I was invited to give the luncheon keynote speech at the IEEE International Conference on Systems on a Chip (SOCC). I owe it all to what is in the Vedas.
> I find it extremely sad that our own scholars are ridiculing what is truly our wealth that affects everything. Truly tragic.
> I request the people maintaining this site to kindly remove my name from this list.
> Prof. P.R. Mukund

> PS: You can google search my name, and you will find thousands of hits that the "west" has raved about what "we" have done.2011/1/7 Dipak Bhattacharya<dbhattach...@yahoo.com>Thaks Dr. Jagannath! One thing that came to my notice is that the existence of the most valuable  theories of physical science (this is the only meaning of the word science known to some Vedic scientists) in the Vedas is discovered onlyAFTERthe theory is disvcovered in the West. That the Big Bang theory exists in the Vedas comes to notice only after the theory is propounded in the West. That wireless existed is noticed after the invention of the radio comes to one's knowledge. The same is true of the Vedic television. Did any researcher of the nineteenth century note their existence in the Vedic times? Why they did not is a question.
>
> Best
>
> DB
> --- OnFri, 7/1/11, Jagannatha s<<a...
>
> read more »

[Ashok Aklujkar]

Dear Sri Arun Upadhyaya,

Like most participants on this list, I wish to learn, and I try to keep as open a mind as is humanly possible.

On 2011-01-19, at 6:19 PM, you wrote:

> (1) Measures of galaxy are given in all astronomical texts, various
> places in Rigveda, kathopanishad, also.

Precise textual references, please. Also an explanation of why the words actually found in the texts are best accounted for with your understanding (= kindly spell out how one starts with the literal or etymological or traditional meanings of the words (the meanings given in ko;sas, dictionaries, received Sanskrit commentaries, etc.) and arrives at the meaning you attach to them; clarify why your meaning is better). What is the word used for 'galaxy'? Is it constant through the texts? How do we know that it means exactly the same thing as 'galaxy' in modern astronomical texts? If more than one word is used, are the attested words definitely synonymous? If not, how do their meanings or shades of meaning differ?

> (2) In 1902, Madhusudan Ojha had written about axial rotation of
> galaxy as manvantara of 30.68 crore years. He explained that human
> mind is image of galaxy as number of particles are same in that (100
> billions) as per Shatapatha Brahmana verses explained by Sayana also-
> so the axial rotation of galaxy was called Manvantara.

Precise reference to where Ojha said what you attribute to him, please. Which part of the ;Sata-patha Braahma.na and Saaya.na did he refer to? Why do you think his understanding is correct or better? How was the information that a/the galaxy and human mind have the same number of particles obtained? Did Ojha mean a particular galaxy or a galaxy in general? (By the way, I have great respect for Pt. Madhusudan Ojha as an innovator. At a difficult time for traditional scholarship, he showed how independent and creative it could be. The tradition needed such a model. I wish there were more like him. Whether he is right or wrong in this or that respect is for the specialists of each field to decide.)

> (3) Vishnu purana (2/7/3-4) state 3 earth/sky pairs and state that
> sizes of world structures starting from man to earth , solar system,
> galaxy, universe are in same ratio of 1 crore. It is also explained in
> several ways in most other puranas and 3 sky-earth pairs of vedas.
>

Since the Puraa.nas vary considerably in containing or not containing particular passages, will you kindly give the wording of the passage(s) you have in mind? Is it found in any critical edition or an edition based on more than one manuscript from different parts of India? Are there any variant readings available? What precisely are the "3 earth/sky pairs," that is, what are the Skt equivalents meant by your English terminology? The same question with respect to "solar system." What is the word used for 'system' in your sources? If no particular word is used, what leads you to conclude that a 'system' is meant?

> (4) Size of smaller worlds are successively smaller by 1 lakh-man,
> cell (Kalila), atom, nucleus, jagat particles of 3 types
> (chara=lepton, sthanu=baryon, anpurva=meson). 3 more levels are stated
> not discussed in modern quantum electrodynamics-(5)Deva-danava, (6)
> Pitara, (7) Rishi. In this sequence, Rishi should be about 10 power 35
> parts of 1 meter which is considered Planck's length in quantum
> mechanics. The time taken by light rays to cross this distance has
> been called Paramanu of Time in Bhagavata purana (3/11) which will be
> of order of 10 power 43 parts of 1 second. that is starting point of
> physics in 'Brief History of Time' by Stephen Hawkins.

Again, a focused and well laid-out demonstration of this passage will be much appreciated. In particular, how did you determine that the Skt words you cite have the meanings you attribute to them?

> (5) ... 'Vishva' indicates number 13 in all texts of astronomy.

Some examples with text specification, please.

> As 'Vishva' means 13, Panini in his ganapatha also
> has included 13 words under heading Vishva.

Which part of the A.s.taadhyaayii do you have in mind? Are there other examples in which Paa.nini, who is known for including only what grammar needs -- who is admired for his keen sense of relevance, allows extraneous information, such as the metaphorical meaning of a word, to determine the number of items he will treat under a particular heading?

> (6) Size of solar system in neither defined nor estimated till now.
> That is clearly stated in famous verse of Rigveda not inserted by me-
> Trimshat Dham Virajati, Vak patangay Dhimahi. Prati vastoh aha dyubhih
> (Rigveda 10/189/3). However, its meaning needs knowledge of Dhama, and
> its measure in 'aha' units. It is given in several other units in
> puranas also. Measures in 6 different units have mutual difference of
> 10% whereas estimate of farthest Woort cloud in solar system has error
> of above 50% (75000 to 150,000 AU).

Why should this .rk be viewed as concerned with the solar system? What did the ,Rgveda have to gain by stating that the size of the solar system is not defined or estimated? If your point is that what is not known now was also not known in the time of the .Rgveda, how does that support your main point that scientific knowledge of a far advanced kind is contained in the Veda? Does it, in fact, not contradict your main point.

> (7) On basis of Bhagavata purana. Balakhilya sukta of Rigveda and Yajurveda (1/1), i calculated
> it [= solar wind] up to Uranus orbit (3000 sun diameters from sun) and was mentioned

> in 3 papers published from Govt institutes of Melkote, Ujjain and
> Allahabad. The issue of Melkote was 1 year later than next year's
> issue and still carried editorial against it due to our natural
> tendency of hating our country.

How does Melkote editor's not agreeing with your calculation mean that we Indians have a natural tendency to hate our country? If it is a natural tendency, can we really do anything about it? Why (or how) was it given only to a particular country/people?

> (8) On earth itself mines were completely surveyed in time of Prithu.
> Till today, prospecting of gold, silver is guess work only. These were
> mined all over world and are mentioned in vedas.

I am aware of passages which can reasonably be taken to mean that, according to traditional historical memory, P.rthu started mining and agriculture. Which passage(s) can be taken to mean "completely surveyed"?

> (9) Aryabhata and Surya siddhanta have stated that north pole is in
> ocean and south pole is on land mass. North pole was reached by
> Admiral Peary in 1909, but in same year Bala Gangadhara Tilak had
> written 'Arctic Home in Vedas'. Amundsen had visited south pole in
> 1931, but only in 1985, it was confirmed to be on land mass and not in
> channel between 2 land masses of Antarctica.

Specific passages from Aarya-bha.ta and Suurya-siddhaanta, please. The exact intent and logic of your next two statements is unclear. Are you saying that Tilak's book was instrumental in Admiral Peary's success in reaching the North Pole?

> (10) Rotation period of major axis of saturn has been stated to be 39
> in 432 crore years in Surya siddhanta. Till today there is no
> theoretical or experimental estimate of this figure.

Precise text reference, please.

> (11) All puranas and astronomy texts tell about 4 points on earth
> surface separated by 90 degree longitude. this is not possible without
> accurate geodetic survey of earth.

Exactly which passages do have you in mind? If the earth was thought of as circular, why would the idea of four points separated by 90 degrees not suggest itself to someone in a culture advanced in geometry *without an accurate geodetic survey*?

You are obviously a very widely read man with considerable imagination. If your statements were written with an awareness of the need for logical and philological exposition that many members of this forum feel, the effort you invested would have been will be rewarding. Hence this request to follow the usual method and standards found in presentations of the historical kind.

You may think that I am asking for too many citations. If the statements you made were of the kind 'Kaalidaasa wrote the Raghu-va.m;sa.' I would not have asked you to provide these citations. Actually, if you wanted to be taken as a true historian (of the field you covered), you should have provided these citations without anyone asking you for them. Scholars do not assert without specifying the evidence and explaining how it supports the assertion. This forum, as I understand it, is for scholars and for the training of future scholars by providing examples they can emulate. You are clearly a scholar. It should not take you much effort to make presentations like a scholar and fulfill your obligation to this forum.

If in answering my questions you feel the need to refer to your published writings, please refer only to those writings in which the expected method is followed and which are truly pertinent. Also, please give all the particulars of publication, so that consulting or ordering those publications will be possible for persons like me.

If you think, what I am expecting will take much time, please invest that time. I am in no hurry.

ashok aklujkar