Jyothisham - The Scientific Calculation

[Eelavar]

http://www.atributetohinduism.com/Advanced_Concepts.htm

Read that, definitely your conception of who is the Indian will change !

http://www.atributetohinduism.com/India_and_Greece.htm

Voltaire ,the famous western writer and philosopher, said, we must thanks the Indians to have gifted mathematics to Greeks who even didn't count over 10'000 !


Pythagore theorem by example was well know by Indians.
Do you really think that Science as you heard began in Western ?

I do not think..
I'm living in West, and i know well what is science, i'm following a degree with Chemistry, Bio, Physics, Maths, and the brainwashing philosophy course !

Chaipau, explain how the Iron pillar of Delhi which is dated back to about -500 B.C can have still not rusted ?

Only scientific knowledge can permit such exploits...
What about Harappa ?
Without science, cities couldn't be built !

It's why i think your affirmation is humorous..

[Eelavar]

--deleted__

[srivatsan]

Congratulationssss to me ( )and all those (especially r_kk, Kannannn, Mahadevan, Ealavar and all others) who participated in this thread, for having taken this to 100 posts (with out discussing anything technical about the title - I am not blaming or complaining, It is my mistake and just mine....)

Anyways.....I hope atleast in the future I can contribute some technical aspects of Jyothisham....

[srivatsan]

Buddhism actually only has one lie (reincarnation)

Cannot agree too..
How humans and other living beeings can evolve if their mind do not evolve ??

Karma is one of the great foundation of religions in India..

chaipau,

Why can we come without coming back another time ?

Guys, I have seen atleast some 20 posts referring to Karma and Vidhi...So why dont we discuss about Karma and Vidhi in a seperate thread? I thin, this will help us to direct this thread purely technical.....

[srivatsan]

Pradheep wrote: "Jyothism is often wrongly interpretted as planets controlling our lives. Instead the truth is that they reflect us and not controlling us....."

Now you are telling that our actions would determine planetary behaviour ?
If what happens is based on ones karma and if what is going to happen can be predicted by using platenary positions(which are only reflecting) as leading indicators, then ones karma would determine planetary positions. Hi Pradheep does this not sound ludicrous ?

Cummon Mahadevan, even looking at Pradeep's post from different point of views, I still can't understand how it implies that While Planets can reflect our fate, we can reflect their fate, as they reflect our fate"

[dsath]

A mistake many people make is to project themselves as they are into ancient times and think that ancient peoples had minds like ours, and to explain primitiveness by saying that they simply had not yet developed a sufficient body of knowledge to put the story of physics together.

It's probably more accurate to think of ancients as having minds like modern 12 to 13 year olds.

Cheers

Quiet hard to accept that school of thinking.
Without some basic understanding of what we call science, humans could not have evolved into the successful species that we are today. Yes a lot of progress has been made in the last 400 years than 4000 years before that. But dismissing all the innovations before the Greek as just observation and nothing scientific is Euro centric approach.
Sometime back i was watching a documentary about tools used in stone age period. A similar looking stone tool was found in NA and France. The expert jumped to the conclusion that Humans have crossed the Atlantic from Europe to NA even during the stone age period. Even for a second he didn't consider that the reverse could be true.
This example shows how unconsciously the whole concept of interpreting our past is very Euro-centric.
Greeks did contribute a great deal to science, but so did the other cultures.

Apologies for interrupting your flow about the topic in question.

[chaipau]

dsath wrote regarding my "school of thinking"

A mistake many people make is to project themselves as they are into ancient times and think that ancient peoples had minds like ours, and to explain primitiveness by saying that they simply had not yet developed a sufficient body of knowledge to put the story of physics together.

It's probably more accurate to think of ancients as having minds like modern 12 to 13 year olds.

Cheers

Quiet hard to accept that school of thinking.
Without some basic understanding of what we call science, humans could not have evolved into the successful species that we are today. Yes a lot of progress has been made in the last 400 years than 4000 years before that. But dismissing all the innovations before the Greek as just observation and nothing scientific is Euro centric approach.
Sometime back i was watching a documentary about tools used in stone age period. A similar looking stone tool was found in NA and France. The expert jumped to the conclusion that Humans have crossed the Atlantic from Europe to NA even during the stone age period. Even for a second he didn't consider that the reverse could be true.
This example shows how unconsciously the whole concept of interpreting our past is very Euro-centric.
Greeks did contribute a great deal to science, but so did the other cultures.

I agree with you that "experts" often make silly claims. By way of genetics it has already been established that the aboriginal North and South Americans were of Asian origin.

It has also been established that Europeans came from Indians.

But it is not permissable to site the claim of a silly expert and use that as a way to label me as "Euro-Centric" or inaccurate. To do so is to invoke the logical fallacy known as "guilt by association".

Thanks to Eelavar for those links, I have added them to my favorites list.

Due to what I think is defensiveness arrising from abusive Western claims of superiority I meet resistance to my much simpler and restricted claim that modern science arose from the line of thinking of a few Greeks, such as Heraclitus, Epicureus and culminating in Socrates, which was picked up again by Europeans in the Enlightenment.

Here is the limited definition of Science I am defending:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science


The key to understanding what I am talking about is to see how with certain Greeks and then the Enlightenment Europeans, Science became purely empirically oriented and divorced from philosophy. In other words, it became totally skeptical and cynical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04582a.htm

The modern, common definition of the word cynical is this:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cynical

What that definition does not make clear is that there is a bias in the definition, a spiritual and religious bias, which turns the word into a negative, or pejorative word.

However, true cynics don't think of themselves negatively or pejoratively, rather, they recognize the bias in the definition and just roll their eyes, understanding that such biases are nearly impossible to combat. Sigh.

The history of much (most?) of Hindu or Indian philosophy is tied in with religion and like all ancient philosophies it was never based on empirical validation.

Eelavar gave a couple links to complimentary snippets written about India by some Westerners. But these links and the comments therein do not address what I am talking about, rather, they employ the wider definition of science as "all of human thought about matter and energy", which I have already in earlier posts made clear is not the definition I'm using or defending as purely Western.

Indian advancements in math are often cited as a sign of an Indian lead in the race of "science".

It is sometimes difficult for people to understand that math and "emprirical science" are not the same thing.

Many people in fact cry out "Heresy!" when they are first told that math is fantasy, it comes from the fantasy region of the brain, and is really a bodily function, not the discovery of something spiritual or of a universal essence.

This idea was already being offered by some of the Ancient Greeks, and was finally laid out clearly by Immanuel Kant in his "Critique of Pure Reason" and "Critique of Judgement".

http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/k/kant/immanuel/

(links to the works I cited are found near the bottom of the page of the link just given)

Math is a brain function, just as digestion is a stomach function.

Here at this link, the cynic Friedrich Nietzsche, who had read the Rig Vedas and studied what he could of Indian civilization, simplifies some of Kant's ideas:

http://www.msu.org/intro/content_int...ietzsche2.html

dsath wrote: "Without some basic understanding of what we call science, humans could not have evolved into the successful species that we are today"

The problem with such a claim will be clear from the above link to Nietzsche. dsath conflates "successful", "science" and "good".

So if anyone will take the time to read and understand the idea that math is a fantasy, and not based on empiricism, and then understand the cynical, skeptical perspective that demands hard proof for "truth assertions", then you will see that this way of thinking, which is the essence of Modern Western Science, arose to some prominence first in Greece with the cynics and skeptics, and later fully bloomed in late Enlightenment Europe.

Interestingly, Kant was not an atheist, but he was honest enough to admit that neither logic nor language had anything to do with God, gods or spirituality. He claimed that spiritual concepts came from intuition and no proof of them was even possible.

Modern Western atheists generally approve of Kant's work, except his claim of understanding the God or spiritual concepts by way of intuition. This "intuition" concept causes atheists to go into convulsions and drool and spit, they get red in the face, steam comes out of the nostrils and ears, and they experience heartburn (bile in the esophagus). So there may in fact be some validity to Kant's claim.

From Kant and Nietzsche, and later Ludwig Wittgenstein, one gradually understands that even language itself is bias and fantasy.

Hindu or Indian math has almost always been tied in with spirituality, with "proving" the Vedas and for instance, Joytisha. Hindu, as well as Jain and Buddhist philosophy all have this interwining of logic, spirituality, math and observation.

Some Western Christians also engage in this intertwining with what is known as the Creationist theory of Evolution.

Catholics, incidentally, now officially (per the Vatican) accept all emprically validated observations. So the Catholics agree with Kant, who was not a Catholic. This is a somewhat recent policy change for Catholics.


Regarding the iron pillar in Delhi that hasn't rusted: experts seem to think the low amount of corrosion is due to mild climate and certain other anti-oxident constituents that were already in the ore, or added to the ore in the smelting process. The iron is also considered very pure. All this simply suggests trial-and-error metalurgy (craftmanship) and alchemy.

We don't know the thoughts and the arrangement of concepts in the minds of those who made the pillar. They may have been very superstitious men.

To cite this iron pillar as something significant is not unlike the way that Muslims like to cite the "4 miraculous scientific revelations of the Koran" about mountains having roots, humans forming from embryos (blood clots), fresh and salt water mixing, and I forget the 4th, something about cloud formation?)

The down side of Empiricism:

The problem with Western Culture, however, lies in the unskillful comprehension by the poplace that empiricism should completely replace spirtuality. This leads to nihilism and an increase in intoxication, compulsivity, materialsim and social problems. The project is ultimately untenable.

To repeat: I have never made that claim that Europeans were superior because they invented modern science. My claim is based in objectively tracing the change in human thought patterns necessary for Modern Science to come into being.

It is too simplistic to simply say that all ancient cultures contributed to the rise of Modern Science. That method of reasoning is gratutious, and one could then extend it all the way back to the frist life form, and then to the formation of the solar system and universe.

What I speak of is only the meteoric rise of cynism and skepticism which had it's basis in Ancient Greece, whose texts then fueled the European Enlightenment.

That Muslims were the caretakers of those Greek documents for many centuries only means that they were the caretakers. They did little to further cynism and skepticism because in the Islamic world it was very hazardous to one's health to be a heretic, as it still is in most of the Islamic world today.

As I recall, it was somewhere around 800 AD that Islam began the suppression of the free study of Greek texts, due to the apparent threat to the social order that these texts presented.

Hindu's had some access to Ancient Greek texts, and may even have made early contributions to them, but for whatever reason cynicism and skepticism did not become popular in India.

The lack of Hindu cynicism and skepticism seems a little surprising, since the invention of negative numbers (debt) is often attributed to India. In fact, the formalization of the concept of debt, indebtedness, (changing a person into a financial instrument) is perhaps the one good claim to early cynicism that can be attributed to Indians.

OK, I think I've made myself clear now.

I am not Eurocentric. If the spirit of Modern Science had any other root, if it had arisen in Korea, for instance, I would champion that observation.

If Eelavar of anyone else can offer me reliable information regarding the history of cynism and skepticism in India, and the results of those movements, I am very interested in knowing about it.

And it may even be that the embracing of "Modern Science" is a decadence, not a superiority. I make no claims to superiority.

For all we know, the future may hold doom for the West and prominence for India. If that doom has sometiung to do with emprical science, what will we have to say then of it ? Indians will no longer want to be associated with it.

Were not the objections by Hindu society to the Young Calcuttans a revulsion against just such a movement?


Cheers

[Eelavar]

chaipau,

Thanks for your comments, i liked to read your post.

Iron pillar was not made by hazard, hazard don't exist...
Alchemy or Chemistry ? Nobody will be able to answer..
Nobody can say if Alchemy was more right than chemistry.
If we believe the Siddhas scripture, let me say that anciant Alchemy was more wonderful than the modern chemistry !
Siddhars were able to do GOLD with another metal, the metod is still not known by the modern chemistry !
The anciant known to use metal like mercury in the medicine !!
How human could know that use of mercury can be healthy if he never did science ?

Science was well developped in anciant time.
It is said that 64 differents science was teached in the vedic period..

Don't you really think that Science doesn't existed before Greeks ?

Let me ask you how Indians found the velocity of the light, and this fact :

Distance between earth and sun = 108 times sun-diameter

Distance between earth and moon = 108 times moon-diameter

??

How is it possible if Science didn't existed ?

This the last and most beautiful proof of my statements : If Indians didn't know 'science' before the existence of Greek thinkers and some modern scientists how were they able to build cities based and a maritime trade ? Cities like Harappa are well advanced
for their time.....

Please don't be irrealist, what Europeans scholars did for centuries it was to hide India's greatness...

What is not white is not pure and perfect, so that should be false....

Chaipau and the other please download these movies..

http://www.desitorrents.com/forums/f...e=2&order=desc

[BBC - What the Ancients did for Us - The Indians]
[Discovery Channel: The Lost Temples of India]
[Ayurveda, The Art of Being - Indian ancient medicine nicely explained]
[Lost treasures of the Ancient World - India]


Without Science it couldn't be possible.

P.S : You must be registred if you want to see and download the movies.

[chaipau]

Eelavar:

Well, it's as if you didn't read my post. And certainly have not read the links I provided.

The writings of Immanuel Kant are truly amazing and I highly recommend them to all, however it is a chore to get through them.

The much smaller fragment of writing from Nietzsche, who admired Brahmins, is a partial condensation of Kant with Nietzsche's cynical coloring. Kant's dissertation is much dryer.

I keep emphasizing the limited definition of "Science" I am defending, and you keep expanding it to include any ancient human thought that may have turned out to be accurate.

For instance, Thomas Edison is said to have invented the light bulb, but he did not have a complete understanding of physics, rather, he tinkered endlessly until he got something to work.

So I never claimed Indians did not have a history of invention or mathmatical manipulations. Only that they lacked the cynicism and skepticism of some Greeks and Enlightenment Europeans

I wonder if we are encountering translational issues.

Can you tell me if there is differentiation in your native language between:

Science
Math
Empiricism
Invention
Philosophy
Moral Philosophy
Spirituality

What I mean is, I know there will likely be separate words for each of these, but are all these concepts linked together through religion and spirituality? Does it just not make sense to you to separate these subject matters and concepts?

In the West, assuming one has had a good education, these subjects have been treated separately since around 1900. It took until around 1900 for the cynicism and skepticism of the Enlightenment to begin to be widely adopted, and the year 1900 more or less marks the end of the Enlightenment and the beginning of the Modern period of Western thought. (Some claim the modern period began around 1880, but only a very few European intellectuals were "modern" at that time)

But I think it wasn't until around the 1950's that many scientists and mathmaticians began to accept the division of math and science. Until then, even Einstein would say that in math he could sense the mind of God, as if math would lead to the ultimate understanding of creation.

Now in a way, Einstein was correct in blending God and math, since both concepts are handled in the fantasy part of the mind. And I don't use the word fantasy as a negative, I use it only to separate it from what can be empirically validated.

I had a hard time letting go of math as something absolute, and the process of coming to grips with that understanding actually gave me headaches.



I never said "what is not white is not pure or perfect", I said some whites are extremely "cynical and skeptical". You put the words of others in my mouth? I would prefer some tasty Indian food. I really love palak paneer.

Also, because it may be hard for you to accept that I am not Euro-centric, you may not believe me when I claim that Europeans can't really take credit for the Enlightenment, because I feel it happened in Europe as a result of a confluence of historical trends that no single person or group can claim to have directed. In other words, it "just happened". But, it did happen, like an explosion.

Also, your statement:
"Please don't be irrealist, what Europeans scholars did for centuries it was to hide India's greatness... "

It is probably more accurate to say: "what Europeans scholars did for centuries was to overlook, undervalue or miscomprehend India's contributions to math and invention."

Also you have to understand that the book printing industry is a business, as I'm sure you do, and in the past it would take a generation for revisions to be printed and sold, and some schools, due to small budgets had to keep their books for many years, even after some of the information in them was outdated.

So new ideas and inventions spread slowly in the past.

Also, it took some time for enough Indians to learn to read and speak English and enough English to read and speak the various Indian languages, so that exhange of information could take place between Europeans and Indians, and not just between merchants, but between scholars as well.

The European study of India was still incomplete as late as 1900. Furthermore, India's study of itself was incomplete, and was joined by European archeologists and Historians.

The Aryan "White" supremacy concept was born of only a few minds, primarily in Germany, and then the idea spread widely for a while. This concept was never embraced by all whites, and most Americans likely never heard much of these ideas until around the time of WW2.

Christians who were properly educated in their religion never held this idea of supremacy. On the other hand, Jews did have the concept of supremacy built into their religion, thus they refer to all non-Jewish men as "goyem" (cattle) and non-Jewish women as "shiksas" (prostitutes). And of course then there is the Muslim view of others as "infidels".

But of course many Christians in the past have been occasionally scared by Hindu culture as it confuses them, and as they sense that Indian poverty is linked to what's going on in the mind. But for decades now Americans and Europeans have been vacationing in India, enjoying their charity work there, and some have traveled there for enlightenment at the feet of gurus.

Also, you should know that the words "All men are created equal" are a fundamental part of the US Declaration of independence against Great Britain, the colonial power that also "administered" India for 200 years.

So don't confuse Americans with British or other Europeans.

Many of the British administrators of India did look down their noses at the Indian people, as they did many others, including American colonists, many of whome were illiterate and unmannered.

I sense that you may have an over-simplified view of "whites".


Also, no one is perfect.

For about a year I worked on an off for an Indian, who I think was Brahmin, named Raj Dutt, who had a Phd in Math. What an arrogant bastard he was! Looked down his nose at me. Wore lots of gold jewelry and had gold rims on his top-of-the-line Mercedes.

Sometimes a good looking famous tennis player named Vijay would come around. Then it was funny to watch Raj kiss his ass.

But if you think of any, please offer me links regarding Indian development of cynical and skeptical thought, prior to the Young Calcuttans.

Thanks for those movie links, I'm going to download and view them.

Does anyone have a good recipe(s) for lentils? Sometimes I buy a pre-cooked lentil dish called 'Bengali Lentils" which is delicious, but I would like to try cooking something like that from scratch.

All American supermarkets have canned "lentil soup" on the shelves, but it is not Indian cuisine and is rather dull tasting.

Eelavar: when are you coming to Los Angeles? We should eat together!

namaste

[Eelavar]

chaipau,

Also, you should know that the words "All men are created equal" are a fundamental part of the US Declaration of independence against Great Britain, the colonial power that also "administered" India for 200 years.

Cannot agree...
I studied both American's and British's history..
United States is based on a genocide, you want or not.

Do you know who were the Indians of America ??...
They were brutally killed in North and South America, don't say the opposite, whole America was a continent were the native Indians were suppressed by the Europeans (Spanish, Portuguese, British, French, etc), by this fact the british who colonized America and later became Americans were not better than the British who colonized India !

Now look the situation..
Indians have not territory for them, they were stolen, you want or not. It's hard to believe but it is the Truth.

In less than 100 years, the majority of Indians of America were killed. Is it not right ?
If you don't agree please come to argue with my excellent history teacher ! She know everythings about that ! It's one of my favorite course that i like to follow, because it's very interesting.

Western richness is a rob of the Southern people.
Britishes robbed India (after the Muslims), and colonized America killing and supressing the natives. I heard that a Swiss doctor during the colonisation of West America gave, brought volontary uncurable diseases to the natives Indians of America in the intention to suppress the population. It's what i call a genocide.
I heard a lot of sad stories like this.
I personnaly think it's a shame that an American deny (or neglect) this holocaust..
Your quotation of the Constitution is senseless when we know that the human life is still not respected in USa, you can be killed by the 'Justice'... Who are they to kill criminals ? What a respect of the human value ! Null.

We don't need such constitution to respect the others.
It's so natural, but in western we need to say it and even to invent Human rights !

Chaipau,
In philo we are talking about Kant and Descartes. I know what you mean by an empirical science. It's a science based on experimentation and observation.. Do the anciants were not brained to experiment and observe ?
It's it not because we don't know their formulaes that we can say that Vedic people never developped Science as modern science.

Do you already heard about Hume ?
He was a great skeptical british thinker.

Only that they lacked the cynicism and skepticism of some Greeks and Enlightenment Europeans

How can you affirm that ?

Chaipau i'm not claiming that Indians are superior and better ! Not not ! Don't too think that i hate Europeans, it's not correct.

A person is a person, i don't look his ethny.

I sense that you may have an over-simplified view of "whites".

I'm not a racist.

How can i prove that vedic people developped science ?

Ah i know, watch the video 'What the Anciants did for us', there are many facts to know..

Or even do you know that the greatest inventor, Nikola Tesla teached vedic philosophy and science ?
Trust me my friend, he was influenced by Swami Vivekananda and his knowledge..

All these are not well known facts, it's surely why Indian heritage is always denied...

http://www.ajnpx.com/pdf/NaturalPhil...laComplete.pdf

Why Tesla used Sanskrit term as Prana, Akasha, etc ??
Good reading..

To deny to Babylon, to Egypt and to India, their part in the development of science and scientific thinking is to defy the testimony of the ancients, supported by the discovery of the modern authorities. - L. C. Karpinski

The Jyotish (400 B. C) echoes the modern concept of the earth's place in the universe, the law of gravity, the kinetic nature of energy(Prove the existence of the so-called Free Energy, the Point Zero), and the theory of cosmic rays and also deals, in specialized but unmistakable vocabulary, with the theory of atomic rays. And what was thousands of years before the medieval theologians of Europe argued about the number of angels that could fit on the head of a pin. Indian philosophers of the Vaisesika school were discussing atomic theory, speculating about heat being the cause of molecular change, and calculating the period of time taken by an atom to traverse its own space. Readers of the Buddhist pali sutra and commentaries, who studied them before modern times, were frequently mystified by reference to the "tying together" of minute component parts of matter; although nowadays it is easy for a model reader to recognize an understandable description of molecular composition. By Charles Berlitz

See you my friend Chaipau.