The Indus Valley Civilization

[Surya_Deva]

The point I was trying to make here is the though Vedas talk about a formless absolute but the Purva paksh(followers of Mimansa or Karma Kaand) have always rejected the Upanishadic concept of “Aham Brahm asmi”

Well, the Vedas themselves do not mention “aham brahmasmi” Vedanta is one particular interpretation of the formless absolute. And within Vedanta itself advaita is not the only school, but there is dvaita and vishvadvait. The Vedantins believe that bhakti and jnana yoga has the power to liberate. It is a more theistic branch of Hinduism.

The Mimansakas, on the other hand understand the formless absolute as the impersonal law of dharma and believe sound/shabd is eternal. To them the power of mantra and Vedic ritual consistent with the laws of dharma or karma yoga has the power to liberate. It is a ritualistic branch of Hinduism.

The Yogins believe that the formless absolute is a state of consciousness. To them raja yoga, tantra or kriya yoga in order to realise this state has the power to liberate. It is a mystical branch of Hinduism.

These schools are not really contradictory, they just view the formless absolute in different ways. A Hindu is not limited to either of them and can draw from all of them. Ultimately the goal is the same whether you are a vendatin, mimasaka or yogin. They all have their merits and demerits. I personally prefer Yoga.

I think part of the reason that nobody other than the mimanskas refer to the Vedas is because the Vedas are so difficult to read and understand and language is so arachic even the best of translators struggle and make mistakes and assumptions. However, there is no doubt that all of Hindu philosophy comes from the Vedas. The generals matter here not the particulars.

The whole of the Universe
Is stationed in the Omnipresent
And Omnipotent god.
We see him in various forms.
He brings to light
All these worlds .
Him they call the kala the infinite
Pervading the vast space
Atharva 19.53.3

Cast of anger
From your heart
Like an arrow from a bow
So that you may again be friends
And live together in harmony
Atharva 6.42.1

Perfect am I
Peferfect is my mind
Perfect are mine eyes
Perfect are my ears
Perfect is my breath
Perfect my entire being
At peace with myself am I
Atharva 19.51.1

O citizens of the world!
Live in harmony and concord.
Be organized and co-operative
Speak with one voice
And make your resolutions with one mind,
As our ancients saints and seers,
leaders and preceptors,
have performed their duties righteously
Similarly, may you not falter to execute
your duties
Rig 10.191.2

Not one of you is small
Not one a feeble child
All of you are truly great
Rig 8.30.1

Two birds(God and Souls)
With their beauteous wings
Associate in intimacy
Perch on the same tree
Of them, the soul, tastes its fruits
The other, god, enjoys without tasting

The knower of reality is he who knows
about the invisible thread running inside
the visible thread
Atharva 10.8.37

He who knows the first vital thread, binding
all the things formed in shape, colour and words,
knows only the physical form of the universe, and
knows very little.

But he who goes deeper and perceives the string inside
the string, the thin web binding separate life-forces with
cords of unity, knows the real entity.

Only he who knows the truly mighty omnipotent and omnipresent
god who is within and beyond all formulated entities of the vast universe.
Penetrate deeper to know the ultimate truth.
Atharva 10.8.38

The mind goes far away
To heaven and earth
Call it back to thyself,
so that it may remain
Under thy control
Rig 10.58.2

O Supreme Lord make me firm
And resolute like Thee
Bless that may look on me with a friendly eye
And I look on others likewise
May we experience complete harmony amongst us
Yajur 36.18

I know this Supreme Being
Who is beyond the limits of darkness
Yajur 31.18

The face of truth
Is covered by the glittering lid of gold.
The Purusha - the ultimate source of conscious life
Who shines in the sun
I am that Aum
The supreme entity
Yajur 40.17

The Supreme lord is too near
to be abandoned
Too close to be witnessed
Behold the natures splendour
And the Lords divine poetry
Both are beyond decay and death
Atharva 10.8.3

Eternity is space, eternity is the mid-air,
eternity is the mother, father and son.
Eternity is all that exists.
Eternity is the social consciousness
Eternal are all that have been born
And shall be born
Rig 1.89.10

He knows the truth who knows
That God is one.
Neither second nor third
Neither fourth is he called.
Neither fifth nor sixth
Nor seventh is he called.
Neither eigth nor ninth
Nor tenth is he called.
He surveys all that breathes and
breathes not.
He possesses the power supreme
He is the One
The One Alone
Atharva 13.514-21

The Supreme Being is is thousand headed,
thousand eyed, thousand footed;
He pervades the universe on all sides,
and extends beyond the 10 dimensions

He, indeed, is all this,
what has been and what will be,
He is the lord of immortality
transcending through material existence

Such is his magnificence, but the Supreme
Being is greater than this; all beings are a quarter
of him. Three quarters make up immortality in the
the supreme region.

Three quarters of the supreme being remain abstract,
one quarter part manifests again and again,
And diversified in form, it moves
to the animate and inanimate world

Through the divine energy of the Supreme being this
dynamic universe came into being(Virat)
Rig 10.90.1-5

O soul, blazing like the sun after cremation, having
reached the fire and the earth for rebirth, and residing
in the belly of thy mother, thou are born again

O soul, having reached the womb, again and again, though
auspiciously liest in thy mother, as a child sleeps in its mothers
lap
Yajur 12.38-39

The reason I have produced such a large frequency of hymns from the Vedas is to show you how clear it is that they contain all of the concepts of Hinduism already. These concepts are then later developed, systematized and turned into scientific systems by the darshanas.

Even verses from Bible & Koran can suggest the same Upanishadic concept of Brahman, that doesn’t mean they “merely expand the concepts in Upanishads”.

Nope, because Brahman is a panthestic god. The Bible and the Quran oppose such a conception of god vehemently.

[Surya_Deva]

Hellooo? why do Frenchmen speak French and Italians speak Italian? because the language is part of the national identity, part of the culture. You choose to ignore the evidence because it doesn’t support your point of view.

Two languages show nothing more the fact there are two languages. There are plenty of examples of different languages evolving in one place. In UK alone there is Gaelic, Irish, Welsh and Cornish. Now, India was a massive subcontinent, why should it only have one language? The Vedic texts mention themselves that other languages were spoken in India. Sanskrit was an academic and sacredotal language, the masses spoke a different language.

There is no proof of there being two parallel cultures one Vedic and one Dravidian, where Vedic is worshipping of nature gods and fire worship and Dravidian is Yoga, Tantra and goddess worship.

Actually, according to the Wikipedia article, they look for where the most variants of the language occur. English is a good choice of example. How was English spread around the world?

1. by colonization, and later
2. by international trade
   So its completely within reason that the Indo-European language was spread by some similar means.

Yeah, exactly. Sanskrit spread from the Indus valley to Europe via trade and migrations of Indus peope into Europe. There is clear evidence that the Indus valley civilisation was trading as far as Mesopotamia and possibly Egypt. This would explain how its words spread. However, the main reason is most likely migration, because the bulk of the Indo-European languages are seen when the Saraswati river dries up and the Indus people have to relocate.

There may be some truth to this (just maybe), but if there was some contact between Hindus and Greeks, it might help to explain the spread of the Indo-European language. It may also be possible that both cultures were Aryan.

They are both Aryan cultures and hence why are both grouped under Indo-European. This is why have so many similarities. It is clear though that India was
the culture the Greeks inherited their philosophy from. Prior to the Greeks there was no philosophy in Europe. The Greeks appear all of a sudden.

What a bunch of hogwash. The Brahma Sutra was written long after the Rig Veda, and the Rig Veda contains lots of examples of naturalistic gods and actually consists of a collection of hymns used in the worship of the gods.

I never said the Brahma sutra was written before the Rig Veda. I was basically telling the philosophy which underpins Hinduism bhakti tradition and that is the philosophy of Nirguna and Sadguna brahman. All learned Hindus know that Hinduism believes in only one god, but this god has many expressions. This is known as henotheism and any modern academic course teaching Hinduism makes this clear. The Rig Veda is likewise henotheistic and hence why it says, “Truth is one, the wise call it by many names” There are hundreds of hymns in the Vedas which talk about the one formless absolute and sometimes they use various names to personify the one. This tradition has carried on right until the modern age. Even today Hinduism invents new gods.

Hinduism is the only religion that has the concept of “isthadevata” whereby one is free to choose any personal god they wish and any interpretation of the one god you wish. You can even have a monkey and snake god. In Islam you have no choice but Allah, in Judaism you have no choice but Yaweh and in Christianity you have no choice but Jesus. There are even Hindu atheists who think of god as a principle(like taoists)

One can clearly see how great this religion is and how it makes other seem very immature.

[Surya_Deva]

Lets just face it the Indus valley civilisation was the largest and most advanced civilisation in the ancient world. It was twice the size of Mesopotamia and Egypt combined and far more advanced. It obviously had a huge influence in the world, and it is clear for example from the fact that there is a one way trade between Sumer and Indus, where Indus exports are found in Sumer and Egpyt and not vis versa, that India was a commercial hub of the ancient world and had the means to export both its goods and its language and culture. The Vedic cuture being as advanced as it is can only have belonged to the most advanced civilisation on Earth. That was the Indus. The Indus were able travel very far and wide around the world as we can see by the spread of Hinduism, Indo-European culture and Buddhism in the world.

The implications of OIT are not only global, but local. A lot of Indian history and dates are going to have to be revised as the previous dating was based on AIT which is now dead and the dating was speculative putting the Vedas in 1500BCE and then starting Indian history from there. Now that it is clear that the Vedas were authored in 6000BCE at the very least, Indian history has to be pushed back by thousands of years. When did Buddha really live 500BCE or 1800BCE according to Hindu records. When did the the Maurayans rule 400BCE or 1500BCE? Patanjali, Panini, Kanada, Jamini, Charaka, Susrath - 600-200BCE or 2000-1500BCE?

It is clear Indian history is missing more than a thousand years of history based on faulty dating and Aryan invasion theory.

[Pawel]

Because of time limitations, I won’t provide a picture how physics quantifies freezing. Comments on comparison in next posts. Just answering to “Vaiseshika Hindu school of empirical physics on freezing” picture, I will just say it is general not specific answer – it just says that “fluidity” of water decreases when there is no “heat” and “light” and that arrangement of atoms is destroyed. It is just description of everyday experience – when its getting colder (less heat) water freezes. And we can see that it more solid – which means that elements from which it is composed do not move. But why exactly we see it at zero degrees temperature? And why such sudden lack of movement and transition and not gradual slowing down of movement?

@Surya Deva;32263

I did not mean literally we could see the wave turn into a particle. However, we can certainly detect that the particle has turned into a wave and this only takes place when an attempt at observertion is made.

Absolutly no. This sentence shows you don’t understand the wave-particle dualism. I will say again: in experiments we see that matter shows BOTH properties – particle and wave properties. Using either one alone is not sufficient to describe the observations. So saying that particle turns into wave is simple lack of understanding of basic concepts.

@Surya Deva;32263

However, the Copenhagen interpretation also works as a get-out clause for scientists who want to deal with the practical side of physics and not worry about the quantum because how physical reality ceases to exist at that level making their efforts seem superfluous.

Physical reality doesn’t cease to exist on quantum level. It is just that quantum objects show very different properties than macroscopic objects.

@Surya Deva;32263

Similarly in Hinduism although it is true that the observer collapses quantum reality where the gunas exist, nonetheless all collapsed objects are still fundamentally the activity of the gunas. This is where the concept of Maya comes from to describe the physical and empirical word. It isn't actually real, because it is fundamentally the activity of guna activity. Quantum physics has reached exactly the same conclusion.

Since when quantum physics states that empirical world isn’t real? Again you seem to confuse philosophy and meta-physics with science. I slowly start to understand why – seems you approach modern science with Hindu philosophical language. Through this you “see” that quantum mechanics shows exactly the same as Hindu philosophy. But language of quantum mechanics is different than the one of philosophical and metaphysics. VERY different.

@Surya Deva;32263

I think you probably just did not like the conclusions that the film was portraying. There is nothing wrong with the physics. It is quantum physics and the scientists interviewed in the film are quantum physicists. What the film does is show quantum physical behaviour on a macro scale. Indeed, it also contain much paranormal things and mystical things. The quantum part of it is valid though.

About academic reaction to this movie:

What the Bleep Do We Know!? | Academic reaction

@Surya Deva;32263

Now atoms combine with one another to form aggregates under the cause of heat/energy. The initially exist as points in space-time and then combine in pairs, then pairs combine to form triplets. These combinations of atoms combine until the first visible atom can be observed. This is defined as the motes one can see in a beam of light. These atoms then go onto form the larger macro-world with differet properties than their parent atoms. These combinations only take place when parent particles are compatible with one another(sounds a lot like electron valencies). In order to make or break bonds Vaiseshika states that heat energy is required. This is also based on empirical observations of chemical changes in things, such as heating up clay and seeing the changes in properties.

I have one answer to that (in light of the “Hindu science is more advanced”): Standard Model of Particles + Periodic Table of the Chemical Elements. Using those you can qualitatively describe the whole freaking visible universe which along with quantum mechanics can enable you to describe such things as supernova explosion and protein folding in cells. I think it is a bit more advanced that theory of adding atoms into pairs and triplets and observations of heating up clay... Nooooo, I can’t believe now how can there be even misguided reason to compare Hindu science with modern in terms of advancement! There is nothing to compare! Some intuitive concepts of vibrations and atoms joining up with exact quantitative predictions of quantum mechanics???

[Pawel]

Comparison of the explanations.

[PatR]

Well, the Vedas themselves do not mention “aham brahmasmi” Vedanta is one particular interpretation of the formless absolute. And within Vedanta itself advaita is not the only school, but there is dvaita and vishvadvait. The Vedantins believe that bhakti and jnana yoga has the power to liberate. It is a more theistic branch of Hinduism.

It is the interpretations of experiences that shapes our beliefs about anything, what differentiates Upanishads from the Vedas is “Aham Brahm asmi”.

The basic Upanishadic thought is Advaitam.

Dvaita & Vishistadavaita (& its sub schools) came into existence after Brahma sutras. Dvaitins & VA rarely cite Upanishadic references & it appears that they consider the Bhagavad Gita & the Puranas more authoritative than the Upanishads, for example ISKCON, for them the most authoritative texts are Bhagavad Gita & Shrimad Bhagavatam. It is only the advaitins who base thier contention on Upanishads. Even the commentaries on Bhagavad Gita by Shankara & Ramunaja are different.

The Yogins believe that the formless absolute is a state of consciousness.

This is again an Upanishadic thought only (Prajnanam Brahma, Aitreya Upanishad).

Ultimately the goal is the same whether you are a vendatin, mimasaka or yogin.

I can never agree with you or anyone else on this.

However, there is no doubt that all of Hindu philosophy comes from the Vedas.

I agree with you, but it depends on what all scriptures you consider as parts of Vedas, for instance for a Mimansak hindu only Samahitas is Vedas, for a Vedantin hindu the Samhitas, the Brahmanas & the Aranyakas/Upanishads make up Vedas.

I’d also like to add that both Sankhya & Mimansa reject the Vedantin concept of Avatar. The mimansakas, they never consider Krishna as Sadguna or Nirguna Brahman & on this side the vedantins consider Indra as a deva.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your knowledge with me

[Surya_Deva]

Because of time limitations, I won’t provide a picture how physics quantifies freezing. Comments on comparison in next posts. Just answering to “Vaiseshika Hindu school of empirical physics on freezing” picture, I will just say it is general not specific answer – it just says that “fluidity” of water decreases when there is no “heat” and “light” and that arrangement of atoms is destroyed. It is just description of everyday experience – when its getting colder (less heat) water freezes. And we can see that it more solid – which means that elements from which it is composed do not move. But why exactly we see it at zero degrees temperature? And why such sudden lack of movement and transition and not gradual slowing down of movement?

I never said they give specific answers. They give general answer(as practice is better than theory). It does not matter if they are general or specific, the physics is right. I also said myself that in terms of empirical physics we have a better understanding in modern empirical physics(periodic table, numbers of protons, electrons, neutrons etc) The Hindus got the generals right. If you have any historical appreciation of science at all, similar ideas that the Hindus knew did not appear in the West till we split the atom. Prior to that Western physics was plain wrong.

I have merely demonstrated my point that nothing within Hinduism is a belief. They had rational scientific method by which they arrived at their knowledge. None of that knowledge is at odds with modern physics.

Hindusim is a science of generals and Western science is a science of particulars. While for a Hindu it sufficient to just say that atoms combine in pairs, triples and then aggregate to form complex aggregates with different properties. In Wester science more precise empirical analysis is needed to measure the different properties(charge, weight, mass, angular momentum) This is one reason why Western science was able to develop technology. Hindu science, on the other hand, was more interested in metaphysics and spiritual sciences, so while it did have empirical sciences too, they were mostly for practical reasons and showed little interest in developing physical technologies like railroads and motors etc.

Where Hinduism leaves modern physics behind is in its detailed metaphysics, something modern physics is only starting to discover. But I am not going to dispute with you that we have more detailed knowledge of the empirical today then we ever had in the past.

Hinduism is more theoretical than it is empirical.

Absolutly no. This sentence shows you don’t understand the wave-particle dualism. I will say again: in experiments we see that matter shows BOTH properties – particle and wave properties. Using either one alone is not sufficient to describe the observations. So saying that particle turns into wave is simple lack of understanding of basic concepts.

Nope, I think it is you who are refusing to understand what quantum physics has dicovered. The particle is EITHER a particle or a wave, it is not both simultaneously. Particle-wave duality has been known since Max Plank discovered the ultraviolet catastrophe and Einstein’s study of the photoelectric effect. The paradox was finally resolved by Schrodinger wave mechanics a few decades later which demonstrated that originally the the particle was a probability wavefunction which collapses into a particle. So there is no particle-wave duality at the quantum level, at the quantum level there is no matter. Period.

Physical reality doesn’t cease to exist on quantum level. It is just that quantum objects show very different properties than macroscopic objects.

It does in fact, because at the quantum level one is no longer dealing with physical description, but possibilities. The probability of finding an electron is an objective property which means that the electron is created at the spot when it is detected, prior to that it a wave.

You say you are physicist but it seems your knowledge of physics ended in 1920. We have come a long way since then in physics.

The differenct properties you talk about are opposite properties:

Physical vs Quantum

Determistic physical laws vs probabilities
Particle vs waves of possibility
Separation vs superposition
Real vs unreal
Empty space vs full space

Quantum physics is wrong according to classical physics. Einstein was more than eager to show this using the EPR problem showing that quantum physics produces an absurdity that instant action at a distance was possible without any contact, which he dubbed spooky action. Then later Bell showed through his proposed experiment of the bell inequalities which then later was empirically validated by Aspect’s experiment that quantum physics does not in fact violate the EPR problem, because quantum information does not travel in the physical world, but in the quantum world which transcends the physical plane. It is by definiton a non physical place. There can be no physical description of it.

In fact we need not even look at quantum physics to prove that the physical barey exists because even atomic physics shows that the vast majority of an atom consists of empty space and its solidity is only apparent. Quantum physics takes that forward and shows that it does not exist at all as physical.

About academic reaction to this movie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_th...demic_reaction

Those are the reactions from materialists and skeptics. This is to be expected. Quantum physics has been very controversial with materialists and traditional scientists from its very beginning because it contradict the classical physics and materialist paradigm. However, whether they like it or not, quantum physics is the current theory of modern physics, it is the most vigorously tested and successful theory in the history of physics and now everything can be explained in terms of quantum physics. Classical physics is dead. Modern science no longer believes the world is made out of matter and the observer has to be admitted. All we can know about the physical world, is only insofar as we are conscious of the physical world. The successor of quantum physics which will most likely be string theory is not going back to classical physics either. Physics will get more weird. Because the truth is "weird "

Move on.

I have one answer to that (in light of the “Hindu science is more advanced”): Standard Model of Particles + Periodic Table of the Chemical Elements. Using those you can qualitatively describe the whole freaking visible universe which along with quantum mechanics can enable you to describe such things as supernova explosion and protein folding in cells. I think it is a bit more advanced that theory of adding atoms into pairs and triplets and observations of heating up clay… Nooooo, I can’t believe now how can there be even misguided reason to compare Hindu science with modern in terms of advancement! There is nothing to compare! Some intuitive concepts of vibrations and atoms joining up with exact quantitative predictions of quantum mechanics???

Hindu science is more advanced because it has a universal theory to explain the stages after quantum physics and a method to do that. It knows about atoms and atomic aggregates and had used that knowledge for practical purposes such chemistry, but it also knows like quantum physics does today, that atoms etc are unreal, just the gross part of reality. The aim of Hindusim has always been to get to the ultimate reality. There is only one way you can do this and that is through Yoga. This is why it is called paravidya(highest science)
Kid yourself all you want, modern physics is behind Hinduism because it does not have anything like Yoga whereby it can directly see those damn atoms and some more The complex maps Hinduism has of the pranic body, the systems of chakras and nadis, the various functions of the pranas in our body and how they connect to our sensory organs and mind is virtually non-existent in modern physics. Hinduism is at the level of mental physics much more fundamental than particle physics. Mental physics gives you the power to control matter. All you have is empty word-knowledge about matter and you gloat over something so meaningless. The Yogi has self-knowedge of matter and because of this the Yogi can control matter directly from tapping in into its fundamental guna level.

[Surya_Deva]

It is the interpretations of experiences that shapes our beliefs about anything, what differentiates Upanishads from the Vedas is “Aham Brahm asmi”.

I think you are contesting popular interpretations here by popular Vedantins, Mimasakas and Samkhya/yogins. This is a typical human secetarian mindset where rather than emphasising the similarities, he emphasise the differeces. Now as a Hindu and somebody not affiliated to any pariticular school I do not have any bias towards sectarianism, but can see the similarities and can see are all talking about the same thing from different perspectives. Ultimately, if I have do have a preference it is Advaitam, because it unifies all the stands.

Now you say that “Aham Brahmasmi” separates the Upanishads from the Vedas. Well, then why do Vedas contain similar statements then:

The face of truth
Is covered by the glittering lid of gold.
The Purusha - the ultimate source of conscious life
Who shines in the sun
I am that Aum
The supreme entity
Yajur 40.17

Perfect am I
Peferfect is my mind
Perfect are mine eyes
Perfect are my ears
Perfect is my breath
Perfect my entire being
At peace with myself am I
Atharva 19.51.1

I can easily see the concept of Brahman very much inherent here. I think I simply have that penetrating consciousness that can see similarities and grasp the generals. As for me it is very self-evident, but others seem to struggle in recognising it.

Dvaita & Vishistadavaita (& its sub schools) came into existence after Brahma sutras. Dvaitins & VA rarely cite Upanishadic references & it appears that they consider the Bhagavad Gita & the Puranas more authoritative than the Upanishads, for example ISKCON, for them the most authoritative texts are Bhagavad Gita & Shrimad Bhagavatam. It is only the advaitins who base thier contention on Upanishads. Even the commentaries on Bhagavad Gita by Shankara & Ramunaja are different.

Even in the Vedas and in the Upanishads you find Dvaita and vishishtaadvaita like thought. Sometimes the Risi is euologising an external deity or identifying themselves with it. I do not think the that they are modern developments, as much as advaita is not a modern development. Instead they are different descriptions of how one relates to the formless absolute. They can either identify with it(aham brahmasi) see them self as integrated in it(like a wave in a ocean) or see themselves as separate from it(almighty god)

This is again an Upanishadic thought only (Prajnanam Brahma, Aitreya Upanishad).

It is not in fact because Yoga contains the notion of purusha which also means the pure consciousness, just as prajnanam Brahma is pure consciousness. If you think about this logically the properties of space, time and number only apply to prakriti, not to purusha because purusha has the opposite properties. Therefore purusha is spaceless, timeless and numberless.
Brahman has exactly the same properties. If something has exactly the same properties then they are identical.

I can see this very clearly. I don’t know how you cannot.

I can never agree with you or anyone else on this.

Why not? Isn’t it true that the goal of all three is moksha or salvation? Why are you so steadfast in seeing differences?

I agree with you, but it depends on what all scriptures you consider as parts of Vedas, for instance for a Mimansak hindu only Samahitas is Vedas, for a Vedantin hindu the Samhitas, the Brahmanas & the Aranyakas/Upanishads make up Vedas.

Well, if we are going to be technical and precise. Then only the Samhita’s should be considered the Vedas. The Brahmanas, Aryanyakas and Upanishads are all later.

I’d also like to add that both Sankhya & Mimansa reject the Vedantin concept of Avatar. The mimansakas, they never consider Krishna as Sadguna or Nirguna Brahman & on this side the vedantins consider Indra as a deva.

Samkhya cannot really reject avatars because Samkhya accept that there is a purusha that is conditioned by prakriti and once the conditioning of prakriti is undone only the purusha will remain as pure consciousness. An avatar is somebody who is identified with the pure consciousness.

As for Mimansa, they too accept that one must have the superconscious state of the Risi in order to receive the vedas. This is again very similar to a avatar, which is merely an instrument which receives the divine.

The dispute seems to be more semantical than ontological.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your knowledge with me

You are welcome

[Surya_Deva]

To add to our discussion Pawel, after reviewing your comparisons:

How long is a piece of string?

Mathematical formalism is a convention used in physics in order to calculate various physical variables but this is actually a fallacy called psychologism, where mathematics is generalized to the empirical world, when in fact the empirical world does not behave in an ideal mathematical way. Such variables are therefore just useful constructs but not real. To calculate the gravitational field of something using gmm/r^2 merely gives you a mathematical entity not something real, as there are no such things as gravitational field in our understanding now, they are now understood to be space-time distortions. Even this understanding can later be falsified. So mathematical formalism produces errorneous empirical knowledge. In this sense the Vaiseshika have an upper hand, because they deal with the general principles of physics, rather than mathematical formalism.

The Vaiseshika also have a theory of mechanics which is based on general principles which are equivalent verbal descriptions of Newtonian mechanics but without the mathematical formalism. For example they explain the motion of an arrow as being produced by the momentum energy imparted from the bow which gives the arrow a horizontal force which reproduces causing it to sail forward, but the arrow loses momentum energy and gradually falls following a parabolic path due to the vertical force of the gravity acting down on the arrow. The Vaiseshika’s are well aware of Newton’s laws of motion.

[Pawel]

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32270]I never said they give specific answers. They give general answer(as practice is better than theory). [/QUOTE]

Yes, they give general answers, however those answers are unable to give any specific predictions and get into the core of the phenomena (provide specific mechanism behind phenomena). I often see in myself and students this transition from general to specific knowledge. I read about something, I have sensation that I understand however when I want to use this knowledge to solve specific problem it comes out that in fact I don?t understand at all. Only through doing maths I came to real understanding. The same with students. I explain things, they nod and have this look of ?understanding?. Then when I ask them to solve simple case there is consternation. Then they realize that in fact they have no idea how to proceed. There is popular saying: ?if you can?t do the maths, you don?t understand the problem?. I believe this is the case here. One can use those philosophical concepts describing reality and have the feeling of understanding. However when this understanding is confronted with real world, real phenomena, it breaks into pieces (or denial that this these not the ?proper questions?). So I ask then what is more advanced physical system? Modern science able to explain almost every measurable phenomena or ?Hidnu science? able to provide general intuitive description but unable to give any quantitative prediction?

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32270] It does not matter if they are general or specific, the physics is right. I also said myself that in terms of empirical physics we have a better understanding in modern empirical physics(periodic table, numbers of protons, electrons, neutrons etc) The Hindus got the generals right. If you have any historical appreciation of science at all, similar ideas that the Hindus knew did not appear in the West till we split the atom. Prior to that Western physics was plain wrong. [/QUOTE]

What physics is right? That sound is vibration? Or that transparency is like light passing through solid like water through porous material? If such statements are physics then yes, the physics is right (except porous material ? light doesn?t need pores to propagate).

And please, do not compare gunas and other elements system with Standard Model or Periodic Table. The fact that the basic approach is the same (to use building blocks of different properties to describe matter) doesn?t justify stating that they say the same. They are light years apart in terms of advancement. The simple proof is that when people in chemical factory in India design reactions they use periodic table of elements and chemistry and not ?Hindu science?.

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32270]I have merely demonstrated my point that nothing within Hinduism is a belief. [/QUOTE]

What about Brahman? Is it also object of the rational scientific research? When Hindu people talk about Brahman they base on results of their personal experiments and don?t use any concept that is not related with experience?

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32270]They had rational scientific method by which they arrived at their knowledge. None of that knowledge is at odds with modern physics. [/QUOTE]

I learned from you that it is different type of science from what I understand science is. I agree there is rational component. I?m trying myself to approach my meditation experience in rational way.
I don?t know if all Hindu philosophy is at odds with modern physics. I can just check whether it has the same level of advancement by comparing its predictions in simple examples. From few examples I?m concluding that it absolutely not more advanced than modern sciences.

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32270]Hindusim is a science of generals and Western science is a science of particulars. While for a Hindu it sufficient to just say that atoms combine in pairs, triples and then aggregate to form complex aggregates with different properties. [/QUOTE]

Try to pass chemistry exam with this approach: ?Sir, all chemistry is about aggregation of atoms into more complex aggregates with different properties. Did I pass? Can I now work now in lab?? You may have in your head feeling of understanding universe but truth comes out when you are confronted with real existence. Real life examples.

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32270]Where Hinduism leaves modern physics behind is in its detailed metaphysics, something modern physics is only starting to discover. [/QUOTE]

Physics is not dealing with metaphysical issues. They are by definition different areas. Writing phd on quantum mechanics you should know this culture in ?western? science. Maybe you rather compare ?western? and ?eastern? metaphysical systems?

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32270]Nope, I think it is you who are refusing to understand what quantum physics has dicovered. The particle is EITHER a particle or a wave, it is not both simultaneously. Particle-wave duality has been known since Max Plank discovered the ultraviolet catastrophe and Einstein’s study of the photoelectric effect. The paradox was finally resolved by Schrodinger wave mechanics a few decades later which demonstrated that originally the the particle was a probability wave function which collapses into a particle. So there is no particle-wave duality at the quantum level, at the quantum level there is no matter. Period. [/QUOTE]

I checked internet and my understanding seems to be correct. Matter shows both properties of particles and waves. Check out:

Complementarity (physics)

Citation: ?The complementarity principle states that some objects have multiple properties that appear to be contradictory. Sometimes it’s possible to switch back and forth between different views of an object to observe these properties, but in principle, it’s impossible to view both at the same time, despite their simultaneous coexistence in reality. For example, we can think of an electron as either a particle or a wave, depending on the situation. An object that’s both a particle and a wave would seem to be impossible because, normally, such things are mutually exclusive. Nonetheless, an electron is truly both at once.?

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32270]It does in fact, because at the quantum level one is no longer dealing with physical description, but possibilities. [/QUOTE]

Description of the physical system using probability distribution is still physical description. I don?t get it how you arrived at this conclusion. Physics is not just about bouncing balls. Probabilistic nature of the quantm world is very physical concept.

[Pawel]

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32270]The probability of finding an electron is an objective property which means that the electron is created at the spot when it is detected, prior to that it a wave. [/QUOTE]

Hm… I always thought electron is all the time there. And by measurement we distort its state obtaining some classical properties (like momentum or position).

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32270]Quantum physics is wrong according to classical physics. Einstein was more than eager to show this using the EPR problem showing that quantum physics produces an absurdity that instant action at a distance was possible without any contact, which he dubbed spooky action. Then later Bell showed through his proposed experiment of the bell inequalities which then later was empirically validated by Aspect’s experiment that quantum physics does not in fact violate the EPR problem, because quantum information does not travel in the physical world, but in the quantum world which transcends the physical plane. It is by definiton a non physical place. There can be no physical description of it. [/QUOTE]

Oh, that is very informative paragraph. This is very important point – you say that world described by quantum mechanics is not physical. Well, this is something new to me. I have never heard such claim and I believe all physicists working in quantum mechanics would raise eyebrows if you would tell them that they don’t analyse physical system. For me it is natural that quantum world is a physical system. It is described by Schroedinger equation which governs spatiotemporal evolution of the system and I don’t see anything not physical about it. The fact that interface between quantum and classical physics has probabilistic nature is just one its properties. Nothing non-physical about it. It caused and still is causing lots of confusion but quantum mechanics is accepted physical description of the world.

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32270] Those are the reactions from materialists and skeptics. This is to be expected. Quantum physics has been very controversial with materialists and traditional scientists from its very beginning because it contradict the classical physics and materialist paradigm. However, whether they like it or not, quantum physics is the current theory of modern physics, it is the most vigorously tested and successful theory in the history of physics and now everything can be explained in terms of quantum physics. Classical physics is dead. Modern science no longer believes the world is made out of matter and the observer has to be admitted. All we can know about the physical world, is only insofar as we are conscious of the physical world. The successor of quantum physics which will most likely be string theory is not going back to classical physics either. Physics will get more weird. Because the truth is "weird " [/QUOTE]

Statement from one of the real physicists from this movie (and not graduates from Maharishi School of Management):

David Albert, a professor at the Columbia University physics department, has accused the filmmakers of warping his ideas to fit a spiritual agenda. “I don’t think it’s quite right to say I was ‘tricked’ into appearing,” he said in a statement reposted by a critic on “What the Bleep’s” Internet forum,“but it is certainly the case that I was edited in such a way as to completely suppress my actual views about the matters the movie discusses. I am, indeed, profoundly unsympathetic to attempts at linking quantum mechanics with consciousness. Moreover, I explained all that, at great length, on camera, to the producers of the film … Had I known that I would have been so radically misrepresented in the movie, I would certainly not have agreed to be filmed.”

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32270]Hindu science is more advanced because it has a universal theory to explain the stages after quantum physics and a method to do that. It knows about atoms and atomic aggregates and had used that knowledge for practical purposes such chemistry, but it also knows like quantum physics does today, that atoms etc are unreal, just the gross part of reality. The aim of Hindusim has always been to get to the ultimate reality. There is only one way you can do this and that is through Yoga. This is why it is called paravidya(highest science) [/QUOTE]

Hold on, there is no such claim in quantum physics that atoms are unreal!!! Where did you find this claim??? It sounds you are using similarity between concepts to support your grandiose claims about Hindu philosophy. Modern science has no claims to metaphysics and it’s not right to compare metaphysical systems with it and claim they are more advanced – only because there are few primitive concepts about physical world which correspond with description of modern physics.

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32270]Kid yourself all you want, modern physics is behind Hinduism because it does not have anything like Yoga whereby it can directly see those damn atoms and some more The complex maps Hinduism has of the pranic body, the systems of chakras and nadis, the various functions of the pranas in our body and how they connect to our sensory organs and mind is virtually non-existent in modern physics. Hinduism is at the level of mental physics much more fundamental than particle physics. Mental physics gives you the power to control matter. All you have is empty word-knowledge about matter and you gloat over something so meaningless. The Yogi has self-knowedge of matter and because of this the Yogi can control matter directly from tapping in into its fundamental guna level. [/QUOTE]

I think this is you who is kidding himself. You saw e.g. explanation of the blue colour of the sky by Hindu science as “something to do with sun light and air” vs. Rayleigh scattering and properties of eye colour sensitivity and you still claim Hindu science is more advanced in terms of science… I don’t know how can you still claim that Hindu science is more advanced…

I don’t argue that Hindu science is not more advanced on metaphysical level. I’m not competent to discuss this subject. That would require someone with deep knowledge of both “eastern” and “western” philosophical systems and with lack of cultural and intellectual bias.

BTW, did you try to reproduce any of “mind affects matter” experiments? You read a lot, maybe you found something one can do at home? Just to experience how this works.

[Pawel]

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32270]To add to our discussion Pawel, after reviewing your comparisons:

How long is a piece of string?

Mathematical formalism is a convention used in physics in order to calculate various physical variables but this is actually a fallacy called psychologism, where mathematics is generalized to the empirical world, when in fact the empirical world does not behave in an ideal mathematical way. Such variables are therefore just useful constructs but not real. To calculate the gravitational field of something using gmm/r^2 merely gives you a mathematical entity not something real, as there are no such things as gravitational field in our understanding now, they are now understood to be space-time distortions. Even this understanding can later be falsified. So mathematical formalism produces errorneous empirical knowledge. In this sense the Vaiseshika have an upper hand, because they deal with the general principles of physics, rather than mathematical formalism.

The Vaiseshika also have a theory of mechanics which is based on general principles which are equivalent verbal descriptions of Newtonian mechanics but without the mathematical formalism. For example they explain the motion of an arrow as being produced by the momentum energy imparted from the bow which gives the arrow a horizontal force which reproduces causing it to sail forward, but the arrow loses momentum energy and gradually falls following a parabolic path due to the vertical force of the gravity acting down on the arrow. The Vaiseshika’s are well aware of Newton’s laws of motion.[/QUOTE]

Well, philosophical concepts are also “fallacy called psychologism”. They also are not real and exist only in the head. They just are not falsified so often because no one bothers to take those concepts and validate them against reality.

[PatR]

I think you are contesting popular interpretations here by popular Vedantins, Mimasakas and Samkhya/yogins. This is a typical human secetarian mindset where rather than emphasising the similarities, he emphasise the differeces. Now as a Hindu and somebody not affiliated to any pariticular school I do not have any bias towards sectarianism, but can see the similarities and can see are all talking about the same thing from different perspectives. Ultimately, if I have do have a preference it is Advaitam, because it unifies all the stands

can you see similarities between Christianity, Islam & Hinduism?

I know some catholics who claim that Christ taught Advaitam, they even cited some biblical verses to prove it, can you see this similarity?

your talkin about seeing similarity, even the author of Bhagavd Gita (a noted Vedantin) has declined the need for the “Karma kaand” (B.G. 9-26) & couldn’t see similarity here. All this talks about “emphasising the similarities” & “because it (Advaitam) unifies all the stands” are just a clever marketing ploy that Vedantins have been using since ages to sell their product & belittling all those who don’t agree with them.(wish the neanderthals & cro magnon knew about Advaitam).

just coz some philosophy doesn’t unify all the stands it doesn’t make it any lesser correct.

You know why Hinduism survived in India & Buddhism couldn’t?

coz hinduism entertains [u]all different thoughts[/u]…there’s no similarity between Sankhya, Mimansa & the so called Vedanta, definition of God can be completely different for one Hindu as compared to another.

The face of truth
Is covered by the glittering lid of gold.
The Purusha - the ultimate source of conscious life
Who shines in the sun
I am that Aum
The supreme entity

Aum the Supreme Entity is omnipresent (like ether) Yajur Veda 40.17, Satyartha Prakash by Swami Dayanand Sarawati. Even the commentary you have provided doesn’t imply “Aham Brham asmi” but if in your twisted logic if it is similar than I can’t help it.

here’s Yajur Veda samhita in sanskrit for your perusal:
http://www.aryasamajjamnagar.org/thevedas/yajurveda/yajurveda.htm

as for the rest of your post, it doesn’t make sense to me. I think you posted just for the sake of posting.

[Surya_Deva]

Yes, they give general answers, however those answers are unable to give any specific predictions and get into the core of the phenomena (provide specific mechanism behind phenomena). I often see in myself and students this transition from general to specific knowledge. I read about something, I have sensation that I understand however when I want to use this knowledge to solve specific problem it comes out that in fact I don’t understand at all. Only through doing maths I came to real understanding.

Generals and universals are the domain of philosophy. Even if you study philosophy of science we look into generals and universals. Vaiseshika, is at the end of the day, a school of philosophy of the empirical or natural philosophy. This is why it does not give specifcs. However, what it does do, it explains using valid rational methods the nature of empirical reality and the causes of various things based on logical methods.

It may sound intuitive to you that states of matter such solids, liquids and gasses are just atomic with different kinetic energy or that matter is atomic in nature and consists of atoms and subatomic particles or that the sky’s colour is blue because of the sunlight and the atmosphere or that sound is a wave that propogated through reproduction and bounces off to produce echos or that atomic and molecular bonds require energy to make or break them or that an object moves in a straight line or remains at rest unless a force acts on it. However, it is not really obvious, it is only obvious because you are taught this in modern physics. Prior to modern physics it was not obvious to scientists in the West. They gave wrong explanations.

If we compare Vaiseshika to a similar time frame in the West with Aristote’s physics you will begin to appreciate how non-intuitive these modern physical concepts are. Aristotle for example rejected the concept of atoms because he saw no evidence of their existence in nature and because atoms would mean there are spaces, and he believed a vacuum was an impossibility because the matter in the universe would immediately fill up spaces. He also posited that all objects will remain at rest unless you give it a force and then the object travels through a medium(say air) and its speed is inversely proportional to the density of a medium. An arrow sails forward according to Aristotle because the arrow creates a vacuum behind it, but because a vacuum cannot exist, the matter in the universe instantly fills it up and propels the arrow along. The object falls or rises because it has a will to go there. He also said a heaiver object will fall faster than a lighter object.

Aristotle physics was the understanding of the Western world right up until the times of Galileo and a correct theory of mechanics did not arise until Newton.

The Vaiseshika on the other hand had a correct understanding of physics from the very start and thus it is demonstrating my point that the Hindus had valid scientific methods by which they gained their knowledge. Beliefs are not tolerated in Hinduism because it’s a science. If it is not empirically or logically sound and cannot be peer-reiviewed or stand up to scrutiny it is rejected.

[Surya_Deva]

Vaiseshika gives the natural philosophy of Hindu physics based on general principles of nature. The specifics however are dealt by the Hindu applied sciences, many of which have been lost over history. Some still exist and are very precise indeed. However, none of Hindu sciences use mathematical formalism because it is a fallacy and specific only to Western science. Hindu sciences are more practical and based on precise observations.

Medicine:

The Suśrutasamhitā is notable for describing procedures on various forms of surgery, including rhinoplasty, the repair of torn ear lobes, perineal lithotomy, cataract surgery, and several other excisions and other surgical procedures. Most remarkable is Sushruta's penchant for scientific classification: His medical treatise consists of 184 chapters, 1,120 conditions are listed, including injuries and illnesses relating to ageing and mental illness. The Sushruta Samhita describe 125 surgical instrument, 300 surgical procedures and classifies human surgery in 8 categories [4]
Ironically, procedures used in modern plastic surgery are based Sushruta's techniques

The Ayurvedic classics mention eight branches of medicine: kāyācikitsā (internal medicine), śalyacikitsā (surgery including anatomy), śālākyacikitsā (eye, ear, nose, and throat diseases), kaumārabhṛtya (pediatrics), bhūtavidyā (spirit medicine), and agada tantra (toxicology), rasāyana (science of rejuvenation), and vājīkaraṇa (aphrodesiacs, mainly for men). Apart from learning these, the student of Āyurveda was expected to know ten arts that were indispensable in the preparation and application of his medicines: distillation, operative skills, cooking, horticulture, metallurgy, sugar manufacture, pharmacy, analysis and separation of minerals, compounding of metals, and preparation of alkalis. The teaching of various subjects was done during the instruction of relevant clinical subjects. For example, teaching of anatomy was a part of the teaching of surgery, embryology was a part of training in pediatrics and obstetrics, and the knowledge of physiology and pathology was interwoven in the teaching of all the clinical disciplines. The normal length of the student's training appears to have been seven years. But the physician was to continue to learn.

History of medicine

Microbiology also formed a part of Ayurveda. The Charaka Samhita for instance contains descriptions of dozens of types of microrganisms, descriptions of what they look like and symptoms of infections. It astonishingly also mentions an "instruments" which were used to see them. If Hindus did have microscopes they have now been lost.

Several scientific studies have shown Ayurveda treats most diseases much better than allopathic medicine with mininal side effects.

Linguistics:

The Ashtadhyayi (IAST: Aṣṭādhyāyī Devanagari: अष्टाध्यायी) is the central part of Pāṇini's grammar, and by far the most complex. It is at once the most exhaustive as well as the shortest grammar of Classical Sanskrit, or indeed, of any language.[8] It takes material from the lexical lists (Dhatupatha, Ganapatha) as input and describes algorithms to be applied to them for the generation of well-formed words. It is highly systematised and technical. Inherent in its generative approach are the concepts of the phoneme, the morpheme and the root, only recognized by Western linguists some two millennia later . His rules have a reputation for perfection ? that is, they are claimed to describe Sanskrit morphology fully, without any redundancy. A consequence of his grammar's focus on brevity is its highly unintuitive structure, reminiscent of modern notations such as the "Backus?Naur Form". His sophisticated logical rules and technique have been widely influential in ancient and modern linguistics

The influence of Pāṇini on the founding father of American structuralism, Leonard Bloomfield, is very clear, see e.g. his 1927 paper "On some rules of Pāṇini".[12] Noam Chomsky has always acknowledged his debt to Pāṇini for his modern notion of an explicit generative grammar.[13] In Optimality Theory, the hypothesis about the relation between specific and general constraints is known as "Panini's Theorem on Constraint Ranking". Pāṇinian grammars have also been devised for non-Sanskrit languages. His work was the forerunner to modern formal language theory (mathematical linguistics) and formal grammar, and a precursor to computing.[14]

The Backus-Naur form (Panini-Backus form) or BNF grammars used to describe modern programming languages have significant similarities to Pāṇini grammar rules. Pāṇini's grammar can be considered to be the world's first formal system, well before the 19th century innovations of Gottlob Frege and the subsequent development of mathematical logic. To design his grammar, Pāṇini used the method of "auxiliary symbols," in which new affixes are designated to mark syntactic categories and the control of grammatical derivations. This technique was rediscovered by the logician Emil Post and is now a standard method in the design of computer programming languages.

Pāṇini

Metallurgy:

Wootz originated in India before the beginning of the common era.[11] Wootz steel was widely exported and traded throughout ancient Europe, China, the Arab world, and became particularly famous in the Middle East, where it became known as Damascus steel. Archaeological evidence suggests that this manufacturing process was already in existence in South India well before the Christian era.[12][13]

Zinc mines of Zawar, near Udaipur, Rajasthan, were active during 400 BC.[14] There are references of medicinal uses of zinc in the Charaka Samhita (300 BC).[14] The Rasaratna Samuccaya (800 AD) explains the existence of two types of ores for zinc metal, one of which is ideal for metal extraction while the other is used for medicinal purpose.[14] The Periplus Maris Erythraei mentions weapons of Indian iron and steel being exported from India to Greece.[15]

History of metallurgy in the Indian subcontinent

Hindu Wootz steel is still regarded the highest quality steel ever produced and several modern attempts have been made to produce the same quality. Another trimupth of Hindu metallurgy is the famous iron pillar of delhi which has resisted corrosion for thousand of years. It has been studied by several scientists in the world on what is the secret of its construction that it can do this.

The Hindu applied science of metallurgy was obviously very advanced as can be found in the Arthshastra a state-craft text which describes the superintendent of metallurgical sciences:

POSSESSED of the knowledge of the science dealing with copper and other minerals (Sulb?dh?tus?stra), experienced in the art of distillation and condensation of mercury (rasap?ka) and of testing gems, aided by experts in mineralogy and equipped with mining labourers and necessary instruments, the superintendent of mines shall examine mines which, on account of their containing mineral excrement (kitta), crucibles, charcoal, and ashes, may appear to have been once exploited or which may be newly discovered on plains or mountain-slopes possessing mineral ores, the richness of which can be ascertained by weight, depth of colour, piercing smell, and taste.

Meterology:

The hydrological cycle is already mentioned by Vaiseshika(it is also mentioned in the Vedas) where it is explained that water on the ground is caused to evaporate by the sun's rays, causing the atoms of the water to rise into the air. This principle is used in Hindu applied science of meterology for weather forecast, rainfall measurement and studying clouds and formation of clouds.
http://www.new.dli.ernet.in/rawdataupload/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005abf_277.pdf

Many Hindu applied sciences have been lost as many Sanskrit texts have been lost which were stored at the ancient Hindu and Buddhist universities such as Taxila and Nalanada which contained vast libraries which were destroyed by invaions. However, we are constantly finding ancient Sanskrit texts, and more we find the more our knowledge increases of ancient Hindu applied sciences.

The Ansu Bodhini is one such Sanskrit text which remarkably describes the science of spectroscopy. The following peer-reviewed journal article in India's most prestigious and respected journal INSA describes it:
http://www.new.dli.ernet.in/rawdataupload/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005afc_611.pdf

It is clear than Hindu science was not just philosophical but also applied, but the extent to how advanced these applies sciences were is mostly lost. The Ayurvedic texts mention microbiology and refer to instruments used to see microbes. The Ansu bodhi describes a spectrometer which has now been built and it works. Wootz steel has now been scientifically examined and it contains nanotube which is what give its high quality.

This is all very consistent with the rest of Hindu literature such as the history texts which mention ancient India having very advanced technology. A Hindu architecture engineering text by Raja Bhoja in the 10th century AD has a whole chapter on the machines used in the past, including a mechanical computer to calculate orbits of planets and aeroplanes using mercury-propulsion.

Finally, if we look at the archeaological evidence, the level of development of the Indus valley is modern. The cites are planned like modern day New york and the houses having plumbing, kitchens, ovens, toilets.
All of this is suggesting ancient modernity demonstrating that the ancient Hindus had reached a very level of scientific development both pure and applied.

[Surya_Deva]

And please, do not compare gunas and other elements system with Standard Model or Periodic Table. The fact that the basic approach is the same (to use building blocks of different properties to describe matter) doesn?t justify stating that they say the same. They are light years apart in terms of advancement. The simple proof is that when people in chemical factory in India design reactions they use periodic table of elements and chemistry and not ?Hindu science?.

I am not going to compare guna theory to standard model or periodic table, because they are primitive in comparison. The guna theory is closer to superstring theory which does not say that matter is made out of basic building blocks called atoms, but that all matter is vibrations of quantum strings. Guna theory is exactly the same all matter is vibration of quantum matter.

Hindus did not engage in any kind of mathematical formalism because it is a fallacy. They used observational classification of the elements. Hence why they identify 5 main elements based on 5 perceptual categories(senses) So all matter in the universe is categorised in terms of shape, mass and colour, touch, smell, taste. All the Hindu applied sciences use this scheme. It’s better than the periodic table because the periodic table deals with only atomic elements, but what about other kinds of matter such as electromagnetic energy, forces, waves and subatomic particles. They fit easily in the 5 element system of the Hindus. The periodic table would fit in the solid atom category and the standard model in the fluidic atom category.

What about Brahman? Is it also object of the rational scientific research? When Hindu people talk about Brahman they base on results of their personal experiments and don?t use any concept that is not related with experience?

Brahman is a philosophical concept based on rational methods of science. It can only be empirically proven with Yoga. Adisankaracharya was able to show that Brahman is not just a mystical experience but could be rationally proven. The word Brahman simply means the infinite, all expanding ultimate reality. This ultimate reality is the true substance of all of reality and everything emanates from this. The Hindu scientists were able to prove that consciousness was the substance that reality was made of, not matter. It demonstrates this by showing that whatever we call reality whether that is chairs, tables and trees is ultimately a mental construction and only has reality insofar as we externalise it through language.

Neuroscience now backs up Vedanta in showing that all of reality is constructed in the mind.

Mind is more fundamental than matter. Matter obeys mind. Modern science is still stuck at matter. Hindu science has gone beyond it to the mind.

Physics is not dealing with metaphysical issues. They are by definition different areas. Writing phd on quantum mechanics you should know this culture in ?western? science. Maybe you rather compare ?western? and ?eastern? metaphysical systems?

No, actually physics is based on metaphysical assumptions, that is assumptions about the nature of reality which cannot be themselves proven. Realism, positivism, epiphenomenalism, materialism, causal determinism are some of those core assumptions. So physics is really metaphysics. As I said earlier the physicist makes a nautral assumption that there is an external world out there that will yield to their measurements.

A lot of modern physics postulates theoreticable and invisible entites atoms, quarks, dark matter and dark energy, virtual particles, fields. This is definitely metaphysics
.
It is no different to Hindu science talking about gunas, vrittis, prana, tanmatras akasha, quantum matter which are also invisible.

There is no difference between metaphysics and physics.

checked internet and my understanding seems to be correct. Matter shows both properties of particles and waves. Check out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_(physics)

Citation: ?The complementarity principle states that some objects have multiple properties that appear to be contradictory. Sometimes it’s possible to switch back and forth between different views of an object to observe these properties, but in principle, it’s impossible to view both at the same time, despite their simultaneous coexistence in reality. For example, we can think of an electron as either a particle or a wave, depending on the situation. An object that’s both a particle and a wave would seem to be impossible because, normally, such things are mutually exclusive. Nonetheless, an electron is truly both at once.?

This is illogical. A basic rule of logic is that there cannot be any contradictions. An object cannot be both A and not A at the same time, it either A or not A. That is exactly what quantum physics shows us an object is either a particle or a wave, when it is a particle it is not a wave and when it is a wave it is not a particle. It is cannot be both at the same time. It’s already been proven by Schrodinger’s wave mechanics the particle does not exist until the wavefunction collapses. Everything is first a wavefunction then it is a particle.

Description of the physical system using probability distribution is still physical description. I don?t get it how you arrived at this conclusion. Physics is not just about bouncing balls. Probabilistic nature of the quantm world is very physical concept.

No, it is not a physical description, it is a mathematical description only of the probability of an electon being found in a certain location. This is not a subjective probability but an objective probability. The difference is the subjective probability is that the electron is already an a priori object and we find it, objective probability is the electron is a non-local wavefunction that is superpositioned that becomes localized on observation and we find it in a position. Prior to observation the electron is not a particle.

Hm… I always thought electron is all the time there. And by measurement we distort its state obtaining some classical properties (like momentum or position).

The electron only exists when it is observed. This is demonstrated by the double slit experiment where the electron exists as a wave when it goes through, and as soon as we observe it collapses into a particle.

[Surya_Deva]

The fact that interface between quantum and classical physics has probabilistic nature is just one its properties. Nothing non-physical about it. It caused and still is causing lots of confusion but quantum mechanics is accepted physical description of the world.

Quantum physicists using physical descriptions for quantum objects are commiting a logical fallacy, as the quantum does not consist of “physical objects” A particle when it is measured has momentum and position, separability and its behaviour can be predicted using general relativity. However quantum objects are superpositioned wavefunctions which exist everywhere at once and interact instantanouesly with everything else in the universe. This is not possible in the physical universe and violates general relativity. Therefore it is clear that the quantum universe is a non-local domain outside of the physical universe.

It cannot be in the physical universe because it has the opposite properties of the physical universe. It is now very clear that there is a plane beyond the physical universe of space which is called the zero point energy field or the quantum vacuum. From this quantum vacuum virtual quanta fluctuate in and out of space. It is called “virtual” because it does not exist in real space-time. This virtual realm cannot be measured because it is not physical.

Statement from one of the real physicists from this movie (and not graduates from Maharishi School of Management):

This does not detract from the fact that the others in the film are physicists and scientists(except from the mystics they interviewed) Amit Goswami, ex professor of physics at Oregon university, one of the interviewed physicists, knows his quantum physics very well.

Hold on, there is no such claim in quantum physics that atoms are unreal!!!

I suggest you read Fritjof Capra’s “Tao of physics” he is a physicist and a philosopher of science. Quantum physics shows atoms do not exist until they are observed. Prior to that they are wavefunctions/information. They only take on physical form when they are observed.

Well, philosophical concepts are also “fallcy called psychologism”. They also are not real and exist only in the head. They just are not falsified so often because no one bothers to take those concepts and validate them against reality.

Philosophy is not about concepts itsef, but about conceptual analysis, deconstructing any idea/theory so we can see the primary assumptions. In this case it is clear that it is an illegal move to generalise mathematics to the real world, because mathematical entities are not real entities. Unless you can show me empirical proof for the number 2 in the world you will have to accept this. Classical physics uses ideal laws such as Boyles ideal gas laws, but the world does not behave in an ideal and deterministic way. A scientific experiment is the complete opposite of the natural world because it it works with a limited set of variables.

There is something very clear thar philosophers have known for ages both in the East and West. Reality is not as it seems to our senses. The view that the world is just how our senses show it to us is called naive realism. There are many things our senses cannot know such as atoms, quarks, dark energy, time, ultraviolet light. We are surrounded by radio waves and microwaves and our senses cannot detect them. Is it conceivable then to you that there maybe other things our senses cannot detect such as other dimensions, subtle energies and forces, astral objects?

Therefore it is clear that if we rely on just what the senses or instruments can show us we will only know as much as they can show, but nothing beyond. To know what is beyond you need rational scientific methods. This is exactly what Hinduism specialises in.

I will demonstrate to how you Hinduism discovered the gunas, vrittis, prana etc. Hindu scientists observed two major things about the world: 1) Everything evolves and 2) Everything takes place in cycles. All things are first unmanifest, then manifest and evolve, then becomes unmanifest again. This can be observed with trees, seasons, animals and humans, even stars. Everything obeys a cyclic nature. They then examined the causes of this and discovered that nothing comes out nothing, that all things proceed from a latent cause within which they are potential and evolve from minute to gross. For example the tree proceeds from minute to gross out of the seed within which it is latent. They finally concluded that the entire universe because it changing and evolving must also have a latent cause which is driving its evolution, therefore at one point the universe must also have been latent in a cause and unmanifest. This they call quantum matter. They modelled this quantum matter like a flat-plane with a potential for manifestation. From here it was logical to conclude that quantum matter exists in a state of perfect equilbrium but has three potential modalities: contractive; expansive and still which always operate in a triad(guna theory)

However how can this equillbrim be broken without there anything within material nature to collapse itself? The question being asked here is a question physicists also ask themselves what causes the big bang or what causes the wavefunction to collapse. As Wigner shows that because the entire quantum system is entangled there is nothing within it to collapse it, but it only collapses in the presence of a conscious observer. Similarly, Hindu scientists arrived at the same conclusion, concluding that an efficient non-material cause is required to collapse the material cause of quantum matter and that could only be a conscious observer.

Once it collapses it will proceed on the basis of evolution from very subtle and minute to gross and dense. It is very logical now to conclude that mind would come before matter comes into existence, because it is subtle and minute. It is also logical to conclude now that before we have particles we will have waves. The opposite sequence is illogical and not supported by any observation. Liquid will always precede solid and gas will always precede liquid. Simiarly quarks will precede atoms, atoms will precede molecules etc
Now as I explain this to you the Yoga metaphysics will start to make sense. The chakras, nadis and prana are said to exist in the etheric body which is more subte than the physical body; the sensory qualia are said to exist in the astral body, which is more subtle than the etheric body; vrittis and karmas are said to exist in the mental body, which is more subtle than the etheric body. Then the causal body(samskars) and finally the spiritual body(chitta)

The final stroke of genius of Hindu science was to create a method by which one could get direct experience(special empirical proof) of the higher realities and the technology of Yoga was invented. It was recognised that because the observer precedes matter and as it is the efficient cause, which causes matter to become active, the observer had absolute knowledge and control over matter. However, as embodied human beings with body and mind(both material products) we are not aware of this power. So by practicing Yoga we begin to awaken this power. Hence why studies have shown that Yoga activates dormant powers we have.

There is no question about it Hindusim is at the level of superscience. It has created sciences that will transform you completely and turn you into a superhuman and actualise your highest potentials. Modern science cannot do that.

[Pawel]

I’m sorry Surya Deva, I have to wrap the discussion at this point. I think I have some idea on how you think and what you want to say.

I’m afraid your efforts resulted in great scepticism on my side. Before I was quite open to learn about contributions of the Hindu culture to science but now I have clear impression that most of those claims are either false or exaggerated. And I consider myself open minded scientist (after all I’m practicing yoga and meditation and read lots of “weird” books). I won’t even mention more conservative scientists which would stop reading after first statements that Hindu science is the most advanced in the world and that Brahman can be empirically proven.

Attempt to verify those claims by comparison of the results of both theories leads to consternation: e.g. Standard Model and Periodic Table vs. Atomic Theory in Hinduism. On left I see a model which can explain everything I see around me and on the right a model which can’t even model simple phenomena. And you still claim this model is more advanced. If it is unable to properly model physical reality, how can I believe it is more correct about other levels of existence? And is there some self-criticism or limitations of the model? No… This is the ultimate description of all reality we know!

As I understand, one of your goal is to promote contribution of the Hindu science and culture to modern science. If you are serious about it, you should be mindful how your actions affect reality. For example, me. Because from now on, I will propagate opinion that one has to be extremely careful reading about contributions of Hindu science to modern science. That there are people who have political and intellectual interest in this and produce tons of false and exaggerated claims and give impression of being extremely arrogant and superior. I already spoke with 2 of my friends at university about it. So, this is the reality: result of the confrontation of your views with a little scientist eager to learn about Hindu culture. Not even fiasco, but opposite effect.

[Surya_Deva]

Pawel, you were skeptical from the start and I know most skeptics will remain skeptics, it does not matter how much evidence you produce for them. This is because skeptics do not accept logic. So I no longer try to persuade them, instead I simply present the evidence and leave it that. If they are rational they will consider it, if they are not, they will not even look at it(such as you turning off what the Bleep do we know half way or not looking at the links I produced giving evidence of reincarnation, astral travel and yoga) This is fine, as I said something is only proven if it one has direct experience of it, and you do not have direct experience of gunas, chakras, pranas, kundalini, siddhis, other vibrational densities, karmas, devas, brahman, you are right to maintain your skepticism. However it is also a catch 22, because you will never find out if you do not do Yoga and experience it for yoursef. Either countless yogis and mystics throughout the ages and decades of modern researchers in the spiritual sciences(paranormal, transpersonal psychology) are lying and all of their data and systems fabricated or they are telling the truth and you are just ignorant of it.

As a Hindu I am strong believer in logic and accept everything that is logically sound. However, I am have been fortunate to also have direct experiences of supersensible realities due to my spiritual practice. So little doubts remain in my mind of the truths contained within Hinduism.

I will say this much, however, your claim that Hinduism does not explain physical reality is wrong. As I just said none of Hindu sciences general explanations are wrong, they are just not particular and do not give predictions. However, Hindu applied sciences can be very precise and explain their subject more precisely than the modern counterpart. For example Indian linguistics analyses language far more precisely than modern linguistics does, and as a result it has been able to develop Sanskrit, which is the worlds only formal language with natural language processing. Modern linguists have commented that Panini’s work may still inform 21st century linguistics, even 22nd century linguistics.

To a Hindu it is clear: if modern science is more advanced, then where is your Ayurveda, Yoga , Vedanta and Sanskrit? Why is it that Ayurveda can treat diseases better, even cure them better than the very best modern medicine can provide? Why is it that Yoga is the best system of mind-body managemet in the word? Why is Sanskrit the most advanced language in the word? Why is Hindu music which is microtonal the most complex and sophisticated in the world? All of these are facts. If Hindu physics is inferior to modern science, why do physicists look towards Hinduism for inspiration? Why is transpersonal psychology strongly based on Hindu research? I can say this with a certain amount of pride, but Hindus are ahead in the sciences, and this is why you guys continue to turn towards us. You did not have steel until the 18th century, we had steel even at a higher quality in 500BCE. You did not have comprehensive medical systems until the 19th century, we had them in 1000BCE. You did not have sanitation systems until the 15th century(which is why you guys suffered horrible plagues, like the black death) we had them in 3000BCE. It must be said but you guys were not the first to do modern science. You are a young civilisation compared to us.

We have done everything before you. We had the first dock yards, industries, the first colonies around the world, the first hospitals, the first universities, the first schools of philosophy, the first comprehensive medical system. The first planned cities and middle-class socieites. The first democracy. The largest and most advanced civilisation of the ancient world belongs to us, and it is twice as large as Egypt and Sumer combined. This information is out there in the open for anybody to see. I think you guys should have more respect for your elders(I am speaking on behalf of Hindu civiilsation, not myself) You have a lot to learn from us.

When it comes to physics what you can learn from us that all of empirical reality is a sensory reality can be reduced to 5 categories(5 elements) Your Greeks leared this from us but misinterpreted it(they had no context) Then you will understand you do not live in a physical world, but a sensory world. Your own modern science backs us up on this. All of reality is made up of sensory data arranged by the mind(Kant also understood this) and then what you perceive is a representation of the world. It is not the actual original world. This fact was understood by your Greek philosophers too, which said all reality was an appearance of something ese.

However, you are a materialist and will refuse to look at anything that contradicts materiaism, because it is your primary belief system. This is your biggest folly in my opinion and your biggest obstacle in your spiritual growth. You arrogantly just proclaimed to me that your current model of physics can explain everything around you. No it cannot, which is there are so many competing theories in physics radically different from one other. Some say gravity is wave, some say a particle, some a space-time distortion, other say it is quantum. Some say the world is real and some say it is holographic. Some say there are 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimesion of time, some say there are 10 dimensions, 13 dimensions, 50 dimensions. Some say there are parallel universes and some say there is only one universe. Some say the universe is flat, some say it is circular, some say it is composed of several membranes. Some say that time flows forward, some say it back flow backwards, and some say it is cyclic. Some say there is dark matter and some say there are quantum fields.

With all this disagreement how can you say you understood the world around you? All you have done is adopted one perspective classical physics, which has been dead for the past 80 years. You understand barely anything of the world around you. Neil Bohr and Heisenberg were humble enough to admit this and accepted that no amount of measurement will ever reveal the real nature of things i.e., quantum.

Materialists are a dying breed in this century and will be all but gone by the end of the century. Modern science, like it or not, is moving into the mind now. Say goodbye to physical reality

[Surya_Deva]

Even more empirical confirmation from actual quantum physicists that physical reality is not real and cannot exist without an observer:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640

Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization.

They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.”

As I said before materialis are a dying breed. People will soon tire of your claims that everybody who states quantum physics shows that the observer collapses the wavefunction does not understand quantum mechanics, when clearly it is quantum physicists themselves that are saying this. It is you materialists who clearly do not understand quantum mechanics. I have talked to several experts in quantum physics who have confirmed over and over again that the observer is required to collapse the wavefunction. Several acadmic books I have read on the subject confirm it. Your feeble attempts to somehow integrate quantum physics into classical physics are not fooling anybody, as is well known that quantum physics contradicts everything in classical physics. As a physicist you should be honest enough to admit this.

Whether you like it or not, science is confirming Hindu science and moving in the same direction of mind. Thus once again backing up my statement that nothing within Hinduism is a belief, it is a scientific fact. We were ahead of you by thousands of years, and still are.