What is Enlightenment?

Spirituality Religion
#121

Now let us come back to something, I am afraid to say, I have more knowledge, understanding and insight into than yourself Q. Why? Well, because I specialised in philosophy of science for my dissertation and obviously my knowledge and understanding was considered valid enough for me to pass with a distinction. The topic I examined was indeed Western science vs Hindu science. I have read the academic literature in philosophy of science, and the most important works in the field from Hume as the first skeptic of science to postmodern criticms of science by Popper and Kuhn. Philosophy of science was one of my electives. In addition to this I have read the primary texts in Hindu philosophy of science too(Nyaya sutras, Vaiseshika sutras, Samkhyakarika etc) So I have not only a detailed understanding and insight into Western philosophy of science, but also Hindu philsophy of science, thus I am in a position to compare and contrast.

Now why is it important to make this clear. I don’t like boasting about my academic accomplishments and I don’t tell everybody I meet, “Guess what, I got a first class degree in philosophy” But why it is important in this case is because you are undermining my understanding of science. Obviously, my understanding of science cannot be this poor, for me to get a distinction in a dissertation specialising in the area of the philosophy of science. Also, for you to be more humble to somebody who knows what they are talking about and not to immediately dismiss their perspective. This is the mark of a fool.

First let me saying something about what philosophy of science is and why a professional scientist in the field, has lesser understanding about science than a philosopher of science. A scientist simply does his job, he does experiments, makes measurements, he uses instruments and machines, he applies existing theories and does calculations and produces reports and statistics. Most scientists in fact work in companies to solve problems for them or do experiments on their products to produce statistics for their products and get their funding from them.

What a scientist does not generaly do is ask important questions about the scientific methods, the assumptions a theory is based on, the ontological status of theoretical entities like atoms, electrons, or even questions about the reality of the world they are measuring and whether it can even be measured(How long is a piece of string?) The epistemology of science and the difference between empiricism and rationalism. Postmodern philosophers especially look at the sociology and politics of scientists and the discourses on power and the social construction of science.

Basically the philosopher of science puts science itself under the microscope. The scientist on the other hand just does their job. Kuhn called scientists, “puzzle solvers” He said scientists operate within a paradigm(Newtonian, Relativity, Quantum, String etc) to solve puzzles for that paradigm. But the puzzles one is solving for a Newtonian paradigm is incommensurable with the puzzles of a relativity paradigm or a quantum paradigm. A paradigm is not just a theory or the improvement on a previous theory, it is an entirely different worldview.

As you have already been told the Einstenian worldview and the Newtonian view are worlds apart. They are not the same thing at all. In the former we have space-time inertial frames of reference which make up the physical universe in which time flows at different speeds and slows down due to gravitional energy. Where gravity rather than being an actual force is simply a depression in the fabric of space-time. Where matter and energy are constantly transforming into one another at the speed of light, such that it is possible to convert any matter to pure energy and vis versa(what is done in an a-bomb) Where light travels at a finite speed, behaves both as a particle and a wave under different circumstances and can be harnessed to produce energy.

In the latter space and time are absolute, a real framework in which a multiplicity of objects are suspended and upon which forces act. There are planets, billiard balls, gasses liquids, light, heat, energy, rocks all separate and particular things. This entire universe is kept together by forces acting upon one another in some kind of perfect harmony, keeping the planets in their orbits around the sun. Nothing ever happens unless a force is applied. Action at a distance is an impossibility. Eveything obeys the universal law of motion. This is a clockwork universe based on the metaphor of a clock. It reflects the prejudices of the time towards clockwork mechanisms.

It is clear for anybody to see these are radically different paradigms. Simply because Relativity can accomodate Newtonian physics if we ignore all relativistic variables, does not mean Newtonian physics can accomodate Relativity. Your “limits of validity” is an absolute fallacy. We could say Aristoltian mechanics is a special case of Newtonian physics if we simply ignore gravity.

The fact is relativistic effects DO take place even in the everday context of an aeroplane or a car, but they are so negligible that the are not worth considering for any practical calculations - so we use Newtonian physics today even purely for practical purposes. It serves our interest. But that does not mean the science of it is not wrong. It is as wrong as Aristotlian mechanics is. We know that matter does not have its own wills like he believed and we know that heavier objects do not fall faster than light objects, and we know arrows do not sail forward because a vacuum is created behind them and the vacuum fills it up - and yet despite the fact that the Aristotlian world knew nothing about gravity - they could still build bridges, pendulums and buildings with it.

Science and technology are not the same thing. Science is simply having knowledge about something. You can have knowledge about something and yet choose not to create a technology using it. I have knowledge of electricity and magnetism, but I have not created a motor. Similarly, it is blatantly clear from what I have cited so far from Hindu science, that they knew about atoms and atomic reactions and how they combine, they knew about energy and matter transformations, they know about thermodynamics, they knew about gravity, the laws of motion and vectors, they knew about quantum matter and observer effects, they knew about cycles of expansion and contraction of the universe.

These facts cannot be denied. It is another question why they didn’t develop any physical technology or give mathematical formulas, but the fact they knew this knowledge cannot be denied. How they knew it is yet another question.

#122

Surya Deva, you…YOUUUUUU…YOU are…

to check your PM’s. I needed to clarify something with you.

#123

If you continue to deny that they did not have this knowledge I can only deem you a fool, because I am producing blatant citations from the primary texts to show this knowledge is there and it is clearly stated. In fact no experts in these texts deny this knowledge is there and even scientists, such as an atheist and hard skeptic like Carl Sagan has expressed surprise at the Hindus having such accurate time scales for the universe which accord with modern science. Great physicists of our time like Nicole Tesla and Erwin Schrodinger have also been highly surprised at how modern the scientific knowledge of the Hindus is, so surprised in fact, that Schodinger pretty much became a Hindu himself and said that he wanted to express Hindu science in the language of modern physics. Many scientists and physicists react to Hindu science in the same way.

The fact is our science is advanced, in fact highly advanced that even science in the 21st century is ratifying what we stated. The latest string theory sounds like something from the Samkhya school, where gunas which are infra-atomic strand like entites at the fundamental level of matter which undergo vibrations, produce all matter in existence and there are 7*7 vibrational densities ranging from low density to high density and each phase has its own distinct dimension or plane.(Incidentally, Samkhya also had an influence on the finding of quantum mechanics and on Tesla) When it is clear we have a priori knowledge on what scientists today are positing, it is highly ignorant to dismiss us. Whatever method we used to get this knowledge OBVIOUSLY works. So stop being a fool, and listen to what we have to say - because you may find you will be confirming us even in 22nd century.

Do you know Panini’s logic, an ancient grammarian(by your dating 500BCE, by ours 2000BCE) is now considered post- Emile Post, a landmark mathematical linguist, logican and computer scientist of the late 20th century. A famous linguist even said that Panini’s logic is so advanced that we may still be learning from it in the 21st or even the 22nd century.
If it is true that the linguistic and logical science of the Hindus is so advanced, then why on earth wouldn’t their other sciences be?

I cannot stand people who reject the knowledge of ancients simply based on the prejudice that they are ancient. Those people are narrow minded fools. Similar to people who reject the possibility of intelligent life on other planets.

#124

[QUOTE=High Wolf;57293]…So many views, so few overlapping. Then the question is,

What is enlightenment? :p[/QUOTE]

Wouldn’t it be automatically defined if we understand its opposite viz. ignorance and darkness?

#125

[QUOTE=High Wolf;57293]Ask a normal person, and the likely answer could be “knowing everything” (about socio-cultural issues).

Ask a natural scientist, and the likely answer could be “Einstein was enlightened.”

Ask a weed-smoker, and the likely answer could be “dude, i am high already!”

Ask Kant or Rousseau, and the likely answer could be "humanism sir, justice, equality…’

Ask a scientific Hindu like Surya, and the likely answer could be “find a guru, follow him for the rest of your life, he will transfer his consciousness to you. And after that practice meditation for a thousand lifetimes, and one day it will happen.”

Ask a Zen roshi, and the likely answer could be sth like “where is my pie?”

Ask an ascetic Yogi, and the likely answer could be “…”

Ask a Sioux shaman, and the likely answer could be “having been touched by the wisdom and the vision of Wakan Tanka.”

:
:
:

So many views, so few overlapping. Then the question is,

What is enlightenment? :p[/QUOTE]

Enlightenment is the state of being iconoclastic.

#126

Enlightenment rocks! Let me put it this way:

Patanjali was a rock star!

Jesus was a roadie!

#127

For somebody who is intelligent and educated, you have a highly idealized view of the world, or probably more accurately, highly biased. We ignorant westerners have a saying, money talks, BS walks. In other words, its the results that count. The ancient Indians did not have science, they had some vague references in their scriptures that they didn’t really understand. How do we know they didn’t really understand it? Because if they did, they would have used it to make their lives better. It’s obvious to everybody that this is the case, and you’re really only fooling yourself.

In my humble opinion, the reason they did not develop science and technology was because they got sidetracked by religion.

#128

[QUOTE=High Wolf;58031]Enlightenment rocks! Let me put it this way:

Patanjali was a rock star!

Jesus was a roadie![/QUOTE]

I think you’re making a big mistake here, although I have to agree with what was said elsewhere, that Jesus was not an enlightened being. He more closely fits the description of an avatar. Big difference.

#129

Dear High Wolf.

You said…Ask an ascetic Yogi, and the likely answer could be “…”

You have already defined an enlightened person and his attribute— that is enlightenment.

Let me also join ringa ringa rosie.

In my scheme of things, even Christ, Buddha, Sankara and all… Were not enlightened.

Before you box me,. Please, allow me.
These people considered themselves to be far intellectually superior to the general masses,
That?s the reason they wanted to educate them to bring them at par with themselves or train them to be like them.

Preach, preach and more preach

THEY ALL HAD NOT TRANSCEDENTED THE BIG EGO THEY HAD.

That?s the reason; Hindus keep the Sruties at the highest pedestals. These were not attributed to any one person. Risis were known to be mantra drasta. Seer of truth,

Smrities and Ithihases were not considered an authority, while advancing spiritual arguments. Because they were written by those who were not fully enlightened and have not vanquished ahemkara.

Enlightened person is one who knows the original cause and its effect in totality, in fullness, in its completeness, the bhuma.
.
The so called enlightened person or leaders of religion, had only transcended the Aghya chakra, and were very different than ordinary. They were all yogis but not enlightened in true sense. This place is the point of greatness.
While activating the mula chakra and going upwards, you keep acquiring various refinement to your skills like excellence in music, oration, analysis, telepathy etc

One becomes a Siddha on reaching the agahya chakra. One becomes sattavic and can convert the water into wine, heal the sick, teletransportion, etc. But they are not enlightened, they are Siddhas

There are six chakras in the classical sense (more in Natha system)
The sahasara is not a chakra but a region which contains all the knowledge of the world, if prana can make that region conscious, then a person acquires all the knowledge of the world, realises the full potentials of the self. He then learns Ahem Bramhasmi. He finally realises he is different than Pradhana and Pradhana withdraws, avidya is destroyed, He becomes enlightened and experiences sat chit and annanda.

And he becomes quiet. HE DOES NOT PREACH>

The prana the life force makes all the cells, the lowest unit of all cellular bodies, conscious. That?s the life force, that?s when cell start dividing itself, prana can make the cell to go beyond Hay Flick limit in a yogi . If prana does not reach them they stop dividing and the organ starts to perform sub optimally.
The royal road to sahasara is closed, the prana cannot reach there and fertilise the region and hence the avidhya.

To be enlightened one has to work hard in his sadhana and make prana flow to sahasara, kundalini only breaks the granthies and susmana is the royal road.

#130

[QUOTE=prasad;58035]
The prana the life force makes all the cells, the lowest unit of all cellular bodies, conscious. That?s the life force, that?s when cell start dividing itself, prana can make the cell to go beyond Hay Flick limit in a yogi . If prana does not reach them they stop dividing and the organ starts to perform sub optimally.
The royal road to sahasara is closed, the prana cannot reach there and fertilise the region and hence the avidhya.

To be enlightened one has to work hard in his sadhana and make prana flow to sahasara, kundalini only breaks the granthies and susmana is the royal road.[/QUOTE]

If Prana makes all the cells, how can one “make prana flow”. It would be like trying to lift a bucket while standing in it.

One needs to surrender to Prana~Shakti. She will traverse all the chakras, do the needful cleansing of all samskaras and reach what was the starting point in the first place.

#131

I have some time now to respond on the issue of the periodic table. Rather than just dismissing my points like a fool, try to understand what I am saying.

The fact that they are now called chemical elements does not change anything. They were called atomic elements originally, because it was believed that they were indeed atoms, the most basic building blocks of matter. Otherwise, they would not have been called “elements” You don’t call something an element if it not a basic and fundamental building block. Now, even if you do call them chemical elements today, it does not solve any problems because you still suffer from the problems like how are chemicals different from atoms - who decides it. This problem is actually expressed beautifully in one of Zeno’s paradoxes - “What defines a heap, how many grains of rice make a heap of rice?” We know that a chemical is actually just an atomic aggregate, starting from the fundamental level of quarks(or rather the fundamental level we know of) which aggregate to form what are falsely called subatomic particles, this aggregate to form what is falsely called an atom, which aggregate to what is falsely called a molecule.

Taxonomies are arbitrary and if you talk to any contemporary philosopher of science, language or even logic they will tell you there is no such thing as a real taxonomy. These are decided purely on convention. Just as on convention we decide what defines a “heap of rice” There is no reason for it. It is just a pure dogma.

You should ask questions like these and show you are an intelligent and thinking person and do not just accept anything you are told at face value. This is not very far removed from faith.

The classification system you use does not matter. What matters is how well, neatly and efficienty your classification system can represent matter. Now the periodic table was created when modern databases were unknown. The modern database where we can click on a folder, open a subfolder, open a sub-sub-folder etc. Now, you deny the 5-element system(mahabhutas) of Hindu science, and yet it is clear to any rational being that all information comes to us from only 5 senses and therefore it is stupid to deny the 5 master categories. In these 5 master categories you can have sub categories, classes and sub classes. Like I said we can classify EVERYTHING that is empirical very neatly and efficiently into the 5-element scheme.

Now how on earth does that stop us from doing chemistry? Is it absolutely mandatory to have a periodic table in order to create compounds in the lab? Do I really need to know the atomic number of gold, iron or silver, to manipulate gold and silver and combine it with other things? This is the error many naive students of science makes. They think it is all planned, the scientist works it all out all beforehand which substance will combine with which, what measure is needed etc - in reality it is trial and error. You find out through trial and error what combines with what, like putting sodium in water - and BANG.

Don’t you think the ancients knew what would happen if they put a particular substance or mineral in water? Of course they did. They didn’t need a periodic table to do chemistry. They would have just had their own tables or almancs giving names to various substances and giving details about it and what happens when it reacts with various things. Now to make it clear to you that the ancients did chemistry here is a text on statecraft by Kautaliya using the 5-element classification system:

CHAPTER XII. CONDUCTING MINING OPERATIONS AND
MANUFACTURE.

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.

The heavier the ores, the greater will be the quantity of metal in them
(satvavriddhih).

Those ores which are obtained from plains or slopes of mountains; and which are
heavy, greasy, soft, tawny, green, dark, bluish-yellow (harita), pale-red, or red are ores of
copper.

Those ores which have the colour of k?kamechaka (Solanum Indica), pigeon, or
cow’s bile, and which are marked with white lines and smell like raw meat are the ores of
lead.

Those ores which are as variegated in colour as saline soil or which have the colour
of a burnt lump of earth are the ores of tin.

Those ores which are of orange colour (kurumba), or pale-red (p?ndurohita), or of
the colour of the flower of sinduv?ra (Vitex Trifolia) are the ores of t?kshna.

Those ores which are of the colour of the leaf of k?nda (Artemisia Indica) or of the
leaf of birch are the ores of vaikrintaka.

Pure, smooth, efflugent, sounding (when struck), very hard (satat?vrah), and of little
colour (tanur?ga) are precious stones.

The superintendent of metals (l?h?dhyakshah) shall carry on the manufacture of
copper, lead, tin, vaikrintaka (mercury [?]), ?rak?ta (brass), vritta(?); kamsa (bronze or
bell-metal), t?la (sulphurate of arsenic), and lodhra (?), and also of commodities
(bh?nda) from them.

The superintendent of money (lakshn?dhyakshah), shall carry on the manufacture of
silver coins (r?pyar?pa) made up of four parts of copper and one-sixteenth part (m?sha)
of any one of the metals, tikshna, trapu, sisa, and anjana. There shall be a pana, half a
pana, a quarter and one-eighth.

Copper coins (t?mrar?pa) made up of four parts of an alloy (p?daj?vam), shall be a
m?shaka, half a m?shaka, k?kani and half a k?kani.

The superintendent of ocean-mines (khanyadhyakshah) shall attend to the collection
of conch-shells, diamonds, precious stones, pearls, corals, and salt (ksh?ra) and also
regulate the commerce in the above commodities.

Soon after crystalisation of salt is over, the superintendent of salt shall in time
collect both the money-rent (prakraya) and the quantity of the shares of salt due to the
government; and by the sale of salt (thus collected as shares) he shall realise not only its
value (m?lyam), but also the premium of five per cent (vy?j?m), both in cash (r?pa).

It is clear from the above that we understood how to extract metals from many ores, the processes of distillation, crystalization, alloying, producing salts etc and manufactured them on a very large scale. Also notesworthy is how our 5-element scheme was used to analyse minerals and ores by analysing the sensory properties: seeing - how it looks; smelling - how it smells; tasting - how it tastes; touching - how it feels. This enabled us to identify based on our table what chemical “element” was what.

Here is what the historian Will Durant has to say on the matter

Significant progress in alchemy was made in ancient India. Will Durant wrote in Our Oriental Heritage:

“Something has been said about the chemical excellence of cast iron in ancient India, and about the high industrial development of the Gupta times, when India was looked to, even by Imperial Rome, as the most skilled of the nations in such chemical industries as dyeing, tanning, soap-making, glass and cement… By the sixth century the Hindus were far ahead of Europe in industrial chemistry; they were masters of calcinations, distillation, sublimation, steaming, fixation, the production of light without heat, the mixing of anesthetic and soporific powders, and the preparation of metallic salts, compounds and alloys. The tempering of steel was brought in ancient India to a perfection unknown in Europe till our own times; King Porus is said to have selected, as a specially valuable gift from Alexander, not gold or silver, but thirty pounds of steel. The Moslems took much of this Hindu chemical science and industry to the Near East and Europe; the secret of manufacturing “Damascus” blades, for example, was taken by the Arabs from the Persians, and by the Persians from India.”

So we did very advanced chemistry and that too without a periodic table.

#132

Prasad,

Mnay things you have said, I am familiar with. An enlightened being, even in my perpection, is a purposeless being. A being that exhausted all the purposes, and finally blend with the energies of the world and even universe. Of course, logically it would be incorrect for an enlightened being begin preaching. Although an ascetic Yogi who had spoken no word for years might not be enlightened at all, but in fact harnessing his will power to overcome certain emotions. His practice is unabated still.

Buddhists claim that Siddhartha came to this world to open the way to crown chakra, where the mystique of the entire world could be grapsed holistically, and the state of Nirvana could be attained. He did attain Nirvana, and decided that his task is to spread this knowledge to the entire world. But Buddhist continue to argue that his motive was not a purpose in itself, nor an effort to gain followers, but simply an act of compassion. Thus his preaching was part of his flowing with the earthly energies, rather than a self-motivation.

I guess we will never know whether he was or he wasnt enlightened in a supreme sense.

#133

The 5-element scheme was not just a metaphysical construct, it was used in the positive and applied science. As I have shown above it was used in chemistry(which at that time was allied with engineering and medicine) and it was used in Ayurveda. In fact the entire theory of Ayurveda is based on the body being made out of 5 elements. These 5 elements combine as such to create regulation systems of the body: ether with wind = Vata; light with earth = Pitta and finally earth with water = Kapha. The Vata’s main area of the body is in the spaces in the body such where the primary location is colon, the respiration system, the nervous system and the elmination system. All movements in the body are governed by Vata. The Pitta’s main location in the body is in the digestive system and in the eyes. Kapha’s main location in the body is in the bones, muscle, fat and fluids in the body.

This tridosa classification system is so effective that it can be used to even classify everything from diseases, chemicals, herbs, minerals, seasons, times of day, climates into their effects on the tridosas. For example the disease Diabetes is considered a Kapha disease because it causes one to lose weight and causes the urine to become sweet(there are actually sub-type classifications as well, just as in modern medicine like Type 1 Diabetes, Type 2 Diabetes) In order to treat the disease the paitent will be given a treatment to bring down their Kapha level by Kapha reducing input, such as: eating less solid and heavy food, eating less sugary foods, exercise and herbs and minerals which are known to have a Kapha reducing effect. Clinical trials on traditional treatments for diabetes has shown that they have superior efficacy in treating, managing and even curing it. By the way for the record while Diabetes had been diagnosed thousands of years by us, you guys only became aware of the diagnosis of the disease in the late 18th century.

Most diseases you consider incurable such as arithritis, parkinsons disease, heart disease and anxiety disorders have been cured in Ayurveda. We also have very strong evidence for Ayurveda’s efficacy against cancer.

And if you want even more proof for why Hindu medicine aka Ayurveda is a superior science, then look at this: http://www.nanoscienceworks.org/Members/agrawalds/bhasma-ancient-but-ultramodern-indian-nanomedicine/

Ayurveda is the ancient Indian medical science based on herbs and herbomineral preparations. Bhasma are the metal based medicine prepare from metals after many systemetic process to raw metal in to therapeutic form. SWARNA BHASMA (Gold ash) a therapeutic form of gold metal of nano size particles when evaluated through various tools and techniques like AFM (Atomic Forced Microscope),TEM (transmission Electron Microscope), SEM- EDS (Scanning Electron microscope and Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy) it was find that the size of particle are about 56 nm. The SWARNA BHASMA was also analyzed qualitatively also through XRD (X-ray Diffraction), FTIR (Fourier Transform Infrared spectroscopy) results showed that the final product is almost pure Au in zero valency state.

Analysis of Gold bhasma
Ayurveda is the ancient Indian medical science based on herbs and herbo mineral preparations. Bhasma are the metal based medicine prepared from metals after many systemetic process to convert raw matel into therapeutic form.

Bhasma are metalomedicine in powder form of nano to submicron size particles. raw metal is converted into therapeutic form through the classical process by repeated incinaration and grinding with some herbal juices and other specified matters. Speciality of the preparation process is that the whole process is not a chemical based rather it is fully a machenical process and chemical properies much differ to the nano particals preparedx through chemical process.

In Ayurveda seven metals are used therapeutically. These are gold, silver, copper, iron, lead, tin, zinc. These metals are passed throuh many process and finally tranformed into therapeutic form.

Gold has been included as therapeutic drug for several diseases.

SWARNA BHASMA (Gold ash) a therapeutic form of when evaluated through AFM, TEM, SEM - EDS, it was found that particle size was about 56 nm.

The therapeutic effect was evaluated through gelatine zymography and invitro experiments were conducted on HT- 1080 human fibrosarcoma cell line. both experiments showed significant results.

Interesting yes, a 5000 year old medicine of the Hindus is now being confirmed by 21st century nanomedicine. Have you ever asked yourself why is that everything the Hindus knew is being confirmed by modern science? Why is our logic matching up to yours in the 21st century? Why did we know about the cycles of expansion and contraction of the universe and that too caused by the fundamental forces coming out of supersymmetry, when you only formulated this theory in the late 20th century? How did we know about the quantum and observer interactions, when you came up with this in the 20th century?

Isn’t it plainly OBVIOUS we are ahead of you in science? We know about heliocentrism before you did(in fact we used both geocentric and heliocentric models for practical purposes) We knew about gravity, force vectors and laws of motion before you did. We knew about thermodynamics and atomic bonding and breaking before you did. I have not found a single modern scientific discovery that was not known to the Hindus. We are your superiors - have respect for your superiors :wink:

Again, why they did not create technology like cars, motors, electronics is a very interesting question, but what is clear they had the scientific knowledge. There is no doubt about it that we are talking here of a very advanced scientific civilisation. The missing technology does indeed raise many a question though.

#134

Buddhists claim that Siddhartha came to this world to open the way to crown chakra

Interesting. Where have you learned this?

#135

Correction: “because it causes one to GAIN weight”

#136

Think on that.

#137

[QUOTE=Asuri;58032]For somebody who is intelligent and educated, you have a highly idealized view of the world, or probably more accurately, highly biased. We ignorant westerners have a saying, money talks, BS walks. In other words, its the results that count. The ancient Indians did not have science, they had some vague references in their scriptures that they didn’t really understand. How do we know they didn’t really understand it? Because if they did, they would have used it to make their lives better. It’s obvious to everybody that this is the case, and you’re really only fooling yourself.

In my humble opinion, the reason they did not develop science and technology was because they got sidetracked by religion.[/QUOTE]

This is an incredibly narrow minded account of Indian history.

Anyone who knows anything about our history knows this is completely false.

Contrary to popular opinion, Indians, along with the Muslims and the Chinese, were very advanced [B]for their time.[/B] Countless technologies, especially in the manufacturing and mining areas, were created. The Muslims alone invented some of the most remarkable technologies in the middle ages and on. But of course, you don’t know of them because you are too busy reading Euro-centric accounts of history. Please take the time to research anything history-related, instead of relying on what the media reinforces.

Furthermore, it isn’t a simple matter of “if you knew it, you would have had it.” Historical circumstances and mathematical theory also play a big part. I don’t need to remind you for the hundredth time that India was conquered and looted by Muslims and Westerners for 1000+ years. I also don’t need to remind you that the Muslim Empires were stagnating economically and societally. By the time all these empires collapsed, the knowledge transfer to the West had already occurred, as had the compilation and compartmentalization of mathematics into more fundamental forms.

Once this expression of mathematics into more fundamental forums occurred, the West skyrocketed onto the world stage.

#138

Surya Deva, if you knew anything about Quantum Mechanics and their contribution to understanding periodic trends, you would know that Chemistry isn’t just trail and error. A large part of it is experimental but based on theoretical models.

The same applies to Physics, which is even more theoretical than Chemistry. Physics is just applied mathematics (which, in turn, is applied logic).

#139

Nietzsche,

I was talking about original discoveres in chemistry. They were through trial and error and then we learned how substances interact with one another. In any case I have more than proven chemistry was highly advanced in ancient India, and it was all done without a periodic table :wink:

I ignored Asuri’s post because the post was retarded. I did not cite a vague reference from a scripture, but I cited very clear and positive statements stating scientific facts from the rational and scientific schools of India.

By the way:

for their time.

What you mean like Ayurvedic nanomedicine? :wink:

#140

Nietzsche, if Indian science was only advanced “for its time” then find me an equivalent to Paninian logic and linguistics in that time period.