Re: panchikarana and elementary particles

[S.R.Krishnamurthy]

My dear Dr. Rajaram,

 

I did not say that sub-atomic particles are only five. All that I said that the Vedas declared that  there were mainly five particles which constituted the atom. That Vedic knowledge cannot be denied.

 

Secondly, you claim 
" A fundamental role is played by the concept of spin, which too could not have been known in ancient times."

 

You are perfectly right as regards the first part about the role of spin; but I have to contradict you on the second part. The axis of the universe is called ratha in Rik.1-164-2; which Yaska clearly defines as spin.

not merely that, in Hymn 9 there itself, it is clearly stated the mother earth which fell into the orbit soon realised that in her spinning in the orbit lies her stability.

 

Yours fraternally,

s.r.krishna murthy.

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Navaratna Rajaram <rajaramn...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

    With due respects to advaita (and dvaita) and to scholars like Sri Krishnamurthy, I feel we should refrain from claims that panca-maha-bhootas predict the five elementary particles of modern physics. To begin with there are considerably more than five elementary particles known. Under leptons alone 6 are known -- electron, electron neutrino, muon, muon neutrino, tau, tau neutrino

 

    As a student of science including foundations of modern physics, I feel that Vedantic ideas may be invoked to help bring metaphysical clarity to the foundations of physics. But I don't believe they can be used at the level of detail needed in the study of elementary particles.

 

    Particle physics rests heavily on experimental work which was not possible in Vedantic times. A fundamental role is played by the concept of spin, which too could not have been known in ancient times. We only undermine the credibility of Vedanta by making unsupportable claims.

 

    At the same time I don't laugh at the concept of panca-maha-bhootas. It is wonderful concept in its context, but this context is not elementary particle physics.

 

Sincerely,

N.S. Rajaram

2012/3/9 S.R.Krishnamurthy <srkmu...@gmail.com>

My Dear Sri Vineet,

 

The modern scientists, including Indians, laugh at the concept of panchmahabhootas; because they were translated as 'elements' by Max Muller; in 1871; when the atom was held indivisible. but as our Upanishads held, the panchamahabhootas were the five primordial sub-atomic particles, which go into the constitution of an atom.

 

I would commend you to refer to The pancheekaram by Dr. Kameshwarnath Mishra; published by Chaukhamba, Varaanasi.

 

The atoms, so-constituted, join together to form the elements and their derivatives, which assemblage determines their appearances. Shankara expounds that just as Ghata, as Ghata, is only mrith; and an ornament, though an ornament, is still Gold only; the Universe, even being Univers, is just an assemblage of Panchamahabhootas; which again are only the True Primordial energy that we call Brahman.

 

This is the scientific truth. This is what our alchemists claimed; that everything can be turned into gold, which the communist Russia experimented in the 1950's and succeeded in producing gold in the laboratory by atomic transmutation; which established the Vedic Science that all atoms were made of the same material. So the advent of the modern Atomic Chemistry silenced all scientist critics and the 'scientific' critics like Lokamanya Balagangadhara Tilak; who rejected Pachikarana of Shankara on the excuse that Chandogya commended only trivrutkarana.

 

Now science has accepted the presence of sub-atomic particles. I am higly glad that IITians like you are taking interested in this subject; and if you are in the field of Particle Physics, you will be able to show to the world that Vedas have the final say on the subject. I do wish you that you shall be rewarded with due recognition like the Nobel prize.

 

But our friends like Sri Ajit Gargeshwari are confused on the subject. Shankara holds that a true philosopher is not carried away by the external appearances that are mutant with Time, space, and context, but the immutant innate material that is permanent and real. It does not negate the existance of the world as it is and its reality. Vedas use tje word Vaithathyam, the different appearance that eclipses the true innate appearance.

 

So the Vedas, as expounded by Shankara, demonstrate effectively that scientifically the whole universe, which includes me, you and everything else, is  constituted by only one fundamental material, ie. Brahman. Yes, it is as simple as that.

 

yours fraternally,

s.r.krishna murthy.

 

 

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Vineet Chaitanya <v...@iiit.ac.in> wrote:

Shree Krishnamurthy ji,

                    I would like to go in more details about panchikarana.

                   To begin with what correspondence do you establish between prithvi, jala, agni, vayu and akasha with the current scientific concepts?

Regards

Vineet Chaitanya

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
to subscribe go to the link below and put a request
https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/subscribe
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com

[Ganesan]

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Navaratna Rajaram <rajaramn...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

    With due respects to advaita (and dvaita) and to scholars like Sri Krishnamurthy, I feel we should refrain from claims that panca-maha-bhootas predict the five elementary particles of modern physics. To begin with there are considerably more than five elementary particles known. Under leptons alone 6 are known -- electron, electron neutrino, muon, muon neutrino, tau, tau neutrino

   As a student of science including foundations of modern physics, I feel that Vedantic ideas may be invoked to help bring metaphysical clarity to the foundations of physics. But I don't believe they can be used at the level of detail needed in the study of elementary particles.

 

    Particle physics rests heavily on experimental work which was not possible in Vedantic times. A fundamental role is played by the concept of spin, which too could not have been known in ancient times.

We only undermine the credibility of Vedanta by making unsupportable claims.

 

  

Very well said, indeed.
Claiming everything in "Vedanta" has become the fashion or 'fad' nowadays.
Definitely this is a disservice to Vedanta.
Neither the Rishi-s of the Upanishad-s nor the Acharya-s had expounded them for this purpose.
Ganesan

[S.R.Krishnamurthy]

my dear Dr. Rajaram,

 

I added the orbit for additional info. But the ratha is pure spin and is clearly defined by yaska; of which I have given the reference, so that you may kindly verify or get it verified acc. to your convenience. Ra stands for rotation; and tha for stationariness. If it is the only instance of similarity between the Vedas and the modern science, its dismissal as a mere overlap may perhaps be appropriate, but the abundance of evidences of scientific data in vedas do not justify mere dismissal; because we will thereby deprive ourselves the opportunity to know better; and deprive the whole world the higher knowledge; which I consider we have no right to do.

 

It is hightime we shed our biases to the subject; and consider themselves as subject meriting attention of scholars like you, with an open mind. I have discovered plenty but unfortnutely our traditional scholars have neglected the study of science; except doing some lip service to Acharyas like Kapilal who again is totally misunderstood because of lack of the basics of physics.

 

persons with potential like you should start investigations into the field; which I assure you will reward richly with results.

 

Yours fraternally,

s.r.krishna murthy.

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Navaratna Rajaram <rajaramn...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

    No one denies Vedic knowledge, but it not the same as the knowledge we have from modern science though there may be some overlap. The spin (rotation) around an orbit is not the same as what we call spin in quantum mechanics. It has no orbit but a quantum mechanical property that distinguishes between force and matter particles and their statistical behavior.

 

    We really should not confuse the two which are looking at the cosmos at totally different levels.

 

    That is all I'll have to say on this topic.

 

Sincerely,

N.S. Rajaram

[S.R.Krishnamurthy]

My dear Mr. Ajit,

 

Your assumption that you alone know about the spin is ridiculous. you have questioned about my knowledge of spin. The subject matter under discussion is not the knowledge or ignorance of one non-entity like Krishna murthy; but the fund of knowledge in Vedas. As regards that I have given exact references; where you can verify. I do not about you; but I do know about Dr.Rajaram personally, and am confident that he will rest without getting the matter verified. Wait for his findings.

 

I have also passed on sufficient material from Vedas to various institutions. Even Kepler was readily accepted. Max Plank was doubted. You need not accept me. But the Truth will dawn one day or the other on some persons at least. Vedas are speaking with certainty about things with regard to which modern science is still groping with improbable theories.

 

Let your next posting deny the veracity of my references to Vedas, than crowing about my ignorance in which nobody will be interested.

 

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear shri Krishnamuthi,

" A fundamental role is played by the concept of spin, which too could not have been known in ancient times."

What you are talking is sheer nonsense.. Do you know any mathematics, do you understand Quantumn mechanics at all????
All i can say say please don't display you ignorance about science again and again. Do you know what is the concept of spin and anti spin. are you replying because you need to reply. Please answer.
Thanks
Ajit Gargeshwari

[Narasimhachary M]

 
Respected scholars: The Sankhayana Srauta Sutra describes Mahavrata and the conduct of soma-savana. It gives several details about the erection of a swing, ladies playing on a lute, singing and dancing. Is there any book in English that explains the significance of these events?
 
Thanks
 
Narasimhachary

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Dear Shri Krishnamurthy,

The conventional definition of the spin quantum number s is s = n/2, where n can be any non-negetive integer. Hence the allowed values of s are 0, 1/2, 1, 3/2, 2, etc. The value of s for an elementary particle depends only on the type of particle, and cannot be altered in any known way (in contrast to the spin direction described below). The spin angular momentum S of any physical system is quantised. The allowed values of S are:

where h is the Planck constant. In contrast, orbital angular momentum can only take on integer values of s, even values of n. That is why rather than was defined as the quantum mechanical unit of angular momentum.

Please let me know if any Vedic texts even remotely was close to the above definition. That is why I said don't read you unfounded pet theories in Vedas. If you talking about philosophy of science, Vedas and Indian philosophy have a lot to offer but what you are talking about or hinted in your writings and posts doesn't make any sense to me for you don't answer specific queries and if you have tried they are unstructured and vague.

I am a keen student of philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology especially Indian philosophy and Shankara Vedanta in particular. I have great pride in scientific advancements that Indians achieved in the field of mathematics, metallurgy, chemistry geometry etc. But please don't be confused with those advancements Indians achieved by trying to weave in unwanted theories into our Vedas.

Regards

Ajit Gargeshwari

[Navaratna Rajaram]

 

    Well put. We do injustice to both science and Vedanta by making unfounded claims. The result will be even valid claims are rejected because so many unsound ones have been made. It is crying wolf too many times.

 

    The terms 'spin up' and 'spin down' have very specific meaning in QM and are fundamental to metaphysical concepts explored in results like Bell's theorem. If someone were to give a Vedantic interpretation of entanglement and Bell't theorem, etc, they would be of interest. But these cannot be based on simplistic geometric ideas or word similarity.

 

N.S. Rajaram

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Dear shri Krishnamuthi,

" A fundamental role is played by the concept of spin, which too could not have been known in ancient times."

What you are talking is sheer nonsense.. Do you know any mathematics, do you understand Quantumn mechanics at all????
All i can say say please don't display you ignorance about science again and again. Do you know what is the concept of spin and anti spin. are you replying because you need to reply. Please answer.
Thanks
Ajit Gargeshwari

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:14 PM, S.R.Krishnamurthy <srkmu...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Navaratna Rajaram]

[Navaratna Rajaram]

 

    No one denies Vedic knowledge, but it not the same as the knowledge we have from modern science though there may be some overlap. The spin (rotation) around an orbit is not the same as what we call spin in quantum mechanics. It has no orbit but a quantum mechanical property that distinguishes between force and matter particles and their statistical behavior.

 

    We really should not confuse the two which are looking at the cosmos at totally different levels.

 

    That is all I'll have to say on this topic.

 

Sincerely,

N.S. Rajaram

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 1:44 AM, S.R.Krishnamurthy <srkmu...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

Please see P.V.Kane History of Dharmasastras VOl II

DB

---

From: Narasimhachary M <drmn...@hotmail.com>
To: bhaatiya <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 9 March 2012 7:49 PM
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Significance of Mahavrata described in the Sankhayana Srauta Sutra

 
Respected scholars: The Sankhayana Srauta Sutra describes Mahavrata and the conduct of soma-savana. It gives several details about the erection of a swing, ladies playing on a lute, singing and dancing. Is there any book in English that explains the significance of these events?
 
Thanks
 
Narasimhachary