Chandogya Upanishad is considered to be one of the major Upanishads and highly regarded by the religiously and spiritually inclined among the Hindu fold.
It is one of the longer Upanishads consisting of 8 chapters of verses. This scripture is a mix of declarations, teachings, fables and allegories.
As a skeptic, one is not keen on a exploration of the theological insights of this work, but its quaint fancies and the odd conceits with which this kind of work is filled, is of some interest and amusement.
Verse V-iii-1 of Chapter V of this Upanishad cites a fable about Svetaketu, the grandson of Aruna, who comes to the assembly of the Panchalas and is received by King Pravahana, the son of Jivala. Since Svetaketu claims to be all-knowing, the shrewd King with the intent of humbling the young Brahmin ascetic, poses the following queries to him:
Q1 : “Do you know where people go after they depart from this world? When people die, where do they go? Do you know the answer to this question, my dear boy?”
Q2 : “Do you know where from people come when they are reborn into this world?”
Q3 : “Do you know, have you any idea of the paths along which the soul ascends, the paths being known as the devayana and the pitriyana? Do you know the difference between these two paths?
Q4 : “Why is it that the yonder world is not filled with people and overflowing? Always, the world is able to contain people and it is never flooded with them. What is the reason for this?”
Q5 : “Do you know what are the five oblations that are offered and how the fifth oblation as liquid becomes a human being?”
It is normal for a modern thinker to laugh at these utterly foolish, absurd and superstition laden questions. But probably in those savage and primitive times ( around 1000 BCE to 400 BCE) in which these works were composed, these flights of inquisitive fancy were common and understandable.
Today we can answer these questions in a fair and sensible manner as here:
Answer 1: In a living and conscious sense, though people may be said to depart from the world, they go nowhere. They just cease to exist.
Answer 2 : Since people are only born once, there is no question of the cause of re-birth to be inquired into and resolved. People are born following the biological process that is innate to their species. So there is no point in speculating about their origins beyond this physical world.
Answer 3: Since there is no such thing as a soul in the material and real sense, obviously there is no question of the soul ascending or descending to anywhere. Devayana and Pitriyana are imaginary realms or concepts mentioned in the Vedas and Vedic liturgy which are peculiarities of Vedic theology or cosmology and what these thought systems elaborate about these so-called realms is their ignorance and vanity and is of little practical relevance to understanding the phenomenon of life and death.
Answer 4 : Since there is no yonder world like heaven, hell or netherworld that has been viewed or experienced objectively, there is no point in wondering whether such are filled or not and why or why not.
Answer 5 : Oblations are probably liquid ingredients used in Vedic rituals. Does it really matter whether these are 5 or 6 or 10 and what they are?. Vedic rituals are wish-fulfillment voodoo inspired by an attitude of superstition and magical thinking. To accord it any more importance would be akin to legitimizing the voice of irrationality. And no oblation or liquid can become a human being, whatever the convoluted symbolism that spiritualists may resort to, about the partly liquid composition of human bodily matter .
Of course many would not be satisfied with these dead-pan though realistic replies to fanciful and conceited puzzles of the Upanishads.
They are most welcome to read the mistranslations of this silly and self-conceited Upanishad by a godman who goes by the name of 'Swami Krishnananda', who provides long-winded, self-serving and manipulative interpretations and commentaries of this work.
It is one of the longer Upanishads consisting of 8 chapters of verses. This scripture is a mix of declarations, teachings, fables and allegories.
As a skeptic, one is not keen on a exploration of the theological insights of this work, but its quaint fancies and the odd conceits with which this kind of work is filled, is of some interest and amusement.
Verse V-iii-1 of Chapter V of this Upanishad cites a fable about Svetaketu, the grandson of Aruna, who comes to the assembly of the Panchalas and is received by King Pravahana, the son of Jivala. Since Svetaketu claims to be all-knowing, the shrewd King with the intent of humbling the young Brahmin ascetic, poses the following queries to him:
Q1 : “Do you know where people go after they depart from this world? When people die, where do they go? Do you know the answer to this question, my dear boy?”
Q2 : “Do you know where from people come when they are reborn into this world?”
Q3 : “Do you know, have you any idea of the paths along which the soul ascends, the paths being known as the devayana and the pitriyana? Do you know the difference between these two paths?
Q4 : “Why is it that the yonder world is not filled with people and overflowing? Always, the world is able to contain people and it is never flooded with them. What is the reason for this?”
Q5 : “Do you know what are the five oblations that are offered and how the fifth oblation as liquid becomes a human being?”
It is normal for a modern thinker to laugh at these utterly foolish, absurd and superstition laden questions. But probably in those savage and primitive times ( around 1000 BCE to 400 BCE) in which these works were composed, these flights of inquisitive fancy were common and understandable.
Today we can answer these questions in a fair and sensible manner as here:
Answer 1: In a living and conscious sense, though people may be said to depart from the world, they go nowhere. They just cease to exist.
Answer 2 : Since people are only born once, there is no question of the cause of re-birth to be inquired into and resolved. People are born following the biological process that is innate to their species. So there is no point in speculating about their origins beyond this physical world.
Answer 3: Since there is no such thing as a soul in the material and real sense, obviously there is no question of the soul ascending or descending to anywhere. Devayana and Pitriyana are imaginary realms or concepts mentioned in the Vedas and Vedic liturgy which are peculiarities of Vedic theology or cosmology and what these thought systems elaborate about these so-called realms is their ignorance and vanity and is of little practical relevance to understanding the phenomenon of life and death.
Answer 4 : Since there is no yonder world like heaven, hell or netherworld that has been viewed or experienced objectively, there is no point in wondering whether such are filled or not and why or why not.
Answer 5 : Oblations are probably liquid ingredients used in Vedic rituals. Does it really matter whether these are 5 or 6 or 10 and what they are?. Vedic rituals are wish-fulfillment voodoo inspired by an attitude of superstition and magical thinking. To accord it any more importance would be akin to legitimizing the voice of irrationality. And no oblation or liquid can become a human being, whatever the convoluted symbolism that spiritualists may resort to, about the partly liquid composition of human bodily matter .
Of course many would not be satisfied with these dead-pan though realistic replies to fanciful and conceited puzzles of the Upanishads.
They are most welcome to read the mistranslations of this silly and self-conceited Upanishad by a godman who goes by the name of 'Swami Krishnananda', who provides long-winded, self-serving and manipulative interpretations and commentaries of this work.
The author of the essay of course is a seeker of knowledge as a result of which tends to reject any knowledge that is not understandable or illogical to him which is common human tendency. Swami Vivekananda belonged to this category. Upanishads, including Chandogya Upanishad are the highest forms of knowledge that ordinary human being cannot understand with out a qualified teacher. They are translated by Max Muller into German and English and are much appreciated by western philosophical thinkers who initially intended to criticize like the author of this essay. If an ordinary high school graduate reads a text that is intended for PhD scientist, of course he would n't understand a bit. If he concludes that the text is crap because he did not understand he is foolish!!! God bless him.
ReplyDeleteVenkat,
ReplyDeleteYou are providing wrong similes and comparisons with instances and examples of empirical works and knowledge sets in defending the so-called excellence and sublimity of the Upanishads.
To understand the translations of Upanishads and infer what it means and stands for and what not, is very much within the reach of 'Ordinary Human beings' like us. Sanskrit is not extra-terrestrial or esoteric or beyond comprehension of 'ordinary minds'
You are also not the first to use this sales pitch of "Chandogya Upanishad are the highest forms of knowledge that ordinary human being cannot understand with out a qualified teacher". Pls try some originality with your persuasion and better arguments. This is too old hat and I don't buy this stale sales pitch.
For logic, reason and sense it matters little that Upanishads are "much appreciated by western philosophical thinkers". I have no problem with Western or foreign appreciation of these works, but flaunting of these Western certificates will not wash in determining whether knowledge claims of the Upanishads have any merit or validity. These will have to decided and determined using independent means of verification and evaluation.
Topics of advanced empirical knowledge and sciences contain definitions, rules and a path of progression towards determining the claims of explanation of the specific aspect of phenomenon and most importantly they have a mechanism for verification of claims.
None of these tests of epistemic validity are even close to being satisfied by texts of Upanishads, Vedas or the Gita.
The secular texts of ancient India like Sankhya, Nyaya, Vaisesikha and Lokayata had some of the features and the framework components of verifiability and could be considered proto-scientific or empirical. But the orthodox texts of Vedanta had no such pretensions
It is unfortunate that apologists like you of the kind of inane and nonsensical idealism of the Vedanta just blindly parrot the tributes and testimonies of religious celebrities without applying any rigor of thought or reasoning themselves.
The reply is in two parts. Part 1 -
ReplyDeleteFirst of, I am not providing any smiles! I am a seeker of ancient knowledge like you. There is a fundamental difference in our approaches though. I tend to accept the knowledge that I understand little and try to investigate and clear myself. I don't make hasty conclusions. The statements I made earlier are merely my opinions. In contrast you tend to reject the knowledge that you understand little thus shutting your doors.
I didnot say that either Upanishads or Sanskrit language is extra terrastrial and hence ordinary human beings woudn't understand. Do you understand complex poems in English language or in your mother tongue? Do you understand the philosophy, thought, intent, emotion, vocabulary, context etc in those poems. I bet you don't. Most of us don't. If you fail to understand peoms in the languages you have used for decades, how did you understand Sanskrit poems written milleneums ago. Languages under go changes over centuries and very smart people them selves have trouble understanding peoms written few centuries ago. I am sure, you have relied on some translation to know about Chandogya contents. I bet you don't understand a bit of "Chandogya Upanishad" on your own.
Wearing old hat, as I mentioned earlier the statements made were merely my opinions, no wearing any one's hats. It is okay if you are calling me copy cat. All of us are. Aren't you? Small kids learn by copying elders. Most of the stuff any one has learned in their life is by copying from variety of sources like books, people, media etc. Don't you copy? I have glanced through tons of blogs that you have written. Did you read Sanskrit poems in Vedas or Vendata etc? You are relying on translations that other people have written. Are you reading from genuine sources, do you genuine understanding of any of the topics that you commented on? Do you know the context in which these Upanishads are written? Yes, there is certain level of originality in your blogs. The originality merely expresses either your hatred towards ancient Indian knowledge or sarcasm. Another tone I see in the blogs is that you have written as if you know every thing in this universe, that is ego centric.
Part 2 -
ReplyDeleteIt is not silly that I stated "much appreciated by western philosophical thinkers". There is a strong reason behind it. Max Muller, when he reviewed ancient Indian literature (Vedas & Upanishads) mentioned “Vedas were worse than savage”. But later on he learned that these are greatest forms of knowledge and have glorified them for rest of his life. Similarly Henry David Thoreau, Julius Robert Oppenheimer, Lin Yutang, Francois Voltaire (etc, the list continues) have initially hated Upanishads because of variety of reasons. The variety of reasons are atheism in them, christiaity in them or their intent of proving superiority of either their own thought process or their religion. But all of them have finally learned and confirmed that Upanishads are greatest forms of knowledge. Swami Vivekananda also had sarcastic views towards Upanishads. But later when he got enlightened he has always glorified them. If you look at the set of people I a refering to, they have neither superstitious beliefs nor they are idol worshippers with blind belief systems. We are talking about the greatest philosphers, thinkers & scientists the history has known. These people cannot be illogical. They have no reason to be apologists either. Do you dare to compare yourself with these people? Better not!
You have quoted -
Topics of advanced empirical knowledge and sciences contain definitions, rules and a path of progression towards determining the claims of explanation of the specific aspect of phenomenon and most importantly they have a mechanism for verification of claims.
None of these tests of epistemic validity are even close to being satisfied by texts of Upanishads, Vedas or the Gita. "
Do you have any idea why the schools of philosophy - Sankhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisesikha and Lokayata have existed? They all have existed with a common goal - "Interpret Vedas & Upanishads". Each school has developed its approach, rules, frame work components (as you mentioned) with their best rationale. Are your blogs secular, I see the bias.
Did you learn anything from the above argument? I bet you won't.
Venkat,
ReplyDeleteYour ignorance of the non-Vedantic thought schools of ancient India is very plain and stark.
With the exception of Yoga (which is probably much later than the other schools mentioned by you)none of these other schools had the objective of interpreting Vedas and Upanishads.
In fact Lokayata is about philosophic materialism that rejects and denounces the Vedas and Upanishads
Only Mimamsa (Purva) and Mimamsa (Uttara) also known as Vedanta openly profess the goal of interpreting Vedas and Upanishads.
Nyaya and Vaisesikha do pay lip service to the Vedas, but that does not mean that they support the views of the Vedas and Upanishads.
So it is no surprise that Mimamsakas and Vedantiks refute the Sankhya, Nyaya and Vaisesikha so strongly in their prati-paksha and purva-paksha debate strategies.
Much of this is reflected in the Mimamsa Sutras and in Sankara Bhasyas on Vedanta Sutras
Pls refrain from voicing views when you don't have your facts right.
Sorry for misquoting the comment to refrain from voicing views.
ReplyDeleteI meant that before making confident sounding opinions, one must get the facts clear.
Comments and opinions are always welcome
Ranganath,
ReplyDeleteSince you haven't commented on my responses except the one on "Schools of Indian Philosophy", I would assume that you are in agreement with rest of my arguments/conclusions. Now refering to my comment on "Schools of Indian Philosophy", my comment appeared plain and blunt to you because I didnot give a reasoning for my statement. I didnot give a reasoning because I thought you knew.
If some one is seeking knowledge or facts based on wikipedia or bloggers who write to excercise their vocabulary they will obviously get an impression that Mimamsa & Vedanta are strict supports of Vedas & Upanishads repsectively but the rest of the schools like Nyaya, Vaiseshika, Yoga & Sankhya have questioned vedas. The sensitive point you have to realize here is these schools have questioned vedas; whether they are in favor of vedas or not is immaterial. They have developed their methods in order to interpret vedas and upanishads. Definitely it was not their exclusive goal neither was primary goal, it was one of their main objectives for sure. Agreed that Lokayata has nothing to do with vedas or upanishads, it was a copy/paste error I made in hasty write up.
Since the dialogue started on "Chandogya Upanishad" and we are deviating from topic, I am not writing beyond.
I hope I made my point very clear that these other schools have interpreted vedas/upanishads. Let me know if you need alternate sources!
Venkat,
ReplyDeleteTo respond to your smug assumptions in para 1 of your comment above, I am not in agreement with your arguments which I can broadly dismiss as appeals to authority, fallacy of invoking experience of some celebrities as proof of a claim, irrelevancy and ad hominem of denigrating the credentials of a critic by comparing his stature of that of a celebrity. I or anybody don't have to smarter than Vivekananda, to figure out the fallacies of scriptures.
Don't know what you are driving at in your 2nd para above. In your earlier comment you claimed all the darshanas were only meant to explain and interpret the Vedas and Upanishads. Now you are saying that Nyaya, Vaiseshika, Yoga & Sankhya have questioned vedas, that too after I called you out on your GK (Gen Knowledge) bluff on the darshanas or schools of thought. BTW, to add your misery of ignorance and flip-flopping on your miserable GK of Ancient Indian Metaphysics, how did you conclude that the Nyaya, Vaiseshika, Yoga & Sankhya have questioned vedas. And what is so sensitive about their questioning of the Vedas? Why would a darshana like Visesikha (based on atomistic theory) need to interpret the Vedas and Upanishads which have hardly anything to with Atomism.
Before I let you know my need of alternate sources from you, feel free to take the trouble to letting me and others know what are the sources of your terrible ignorance and cluelessness about the Vedas/Upanishads and ancient Indian schools of thought
Randanath,
DeleteTwo parts –
Part1:
You stole my words. I wanted to call you an ignorant by all means, in terms of rationale as well as your GK on ancient Knowledge. I didnot want to be harsh to you. But dumbers like you will never understand kindness of other people. You neither have logic nor rationale in any of your blogs. All your blogs are biased with an agenda of abusing vedas, upanishads, Adi Sankara etc. Criticism is acceptable but your blogs are abusive with illogic (wrong logic). There are several such examples in your STUPID blogs, I am quoting only one here because I don't want to waste my time in convincing a dumb narrow minded crap writer.
You made a statement in one of your blogs - "And he has made no bones about his true opinion of humanity and life in general by calling people Mooda Mathe or fools" which clearly proves that you have no idea what you are talking. Its a mad man writing crap because he knows English language and has access to internet. Let me educate you little bit here, oh! Mooda Mathe. Adi Sankara used the word "Mooda Mathe" in Bhaja Govindam only and not in any of his other works. Obviously you have no knowledge of it. Bhaja Govindam is not a work of Advaitha Vedanta. It is peotry with realizations that are helpful (espcially for mooda mathis like you) for humanity. He doesn't call the entire humanity "Mooda Mathe", he is calling ignorant people (includes you). In the very same poetry he addresses listeners as "Friend" & "Brother". Instead of understanding the good message is giving, haters like you catch few words and write big blogs. Understand the inner meaning and intent oh! Mooda Mathe! It will help you. This clearly proves that you knowledge is miserable and you have absolutely no idea what you are writing. I have plenty of examples like this in the absolute junk that you wrote.
Lets get back to the crap you gave me in your last comments. You would broadly dismiss my appeals because you have absolutely no intelligence and no content to defend my appeals with your narrow mind oh! Mooda Mathe! Why didn't you comment before I had to assume?
Getting into the 2nd para crap, I laugh at your incapacity to understand my clear argument. I would assume I am teaching a first grade kid here. Mimamsa & Vedanta schools have interpreted vedas with an axiom that vedas cannot be questioned, they are "Apauruseya" meaning they are not of human agency. They have never questioned vedas or upanishads. Nyaya, Yoga, Vaiseshika & Sankhya have also interpreted vedas and accepted several aspects, but they have questioned vedas using the methods they have developed. The did not accept that vedas as the ultimate authority but have accepted several aspects.
Your ignorant brain which has relied on crappy blogs all over internet has made you write "Why would a darshana like Vaisesikha (based on atomistic theory) need to interpret the Vedas and Upanishads which have hardly anything to with Atomism". Oh! Mooda Mathe, Rgveda & Atharva veda include the science of astronomy and astro-physics as well. Vaiseshika has utlized its tools and methods to interpret these elements. Read the sources given below.
ReplyDeleteSince you have asked me my sources that would shed light on your ignorant dumb brain (It wouldn't help others much because you don't have any valuable admirers for the crap you have written, I already see it!), here they are -
1. Hinduism by Swami Vivekananda
2. Essentials of Hinduism (Ramakrishna Matt)
3. Nyaya-Vaisheshika: The Indian Tradition of Physics by Roopa Narayan (White Paper presented at Cornell Univesity)
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701077.pdf
4. Perception An assay on classical indian theories of knowledge by B.K.Matilal, Oxford University
5. Human Physiology - Expression of Veda by Dr. Tony Nader)
http://is1.mum.edu/vedicreserve/vaisheshik.htm
All the above mentioned sources clearly prove that the six darshanas have interpreted vedas.
You must be ashamed of making numerous false statements which are not only biased but lack logic. Make sure you have thorough knowledge before you make any blunt statements. These are my words to you.
Venkat,
ReplyDeleteAbuses don't help in a debate or argument. Your abuses only serve to show your personality in a very poor light.
Coming to your claims, that Rgveda & Atharva veda include the science of astronomy and astro-physics as well is utter nonsense and rubbish. The translations of these texts are in the public domain and claims can be subjected to verification. There are no descriptive theories or hypotheses relating to astronomy and astro-physics in them that are comparable to recent(last 300-400 years) findings in those disciplines. Vivekananda and other revivalists have indulged in imaginative revisionist interpretations of the some cryptic verses of the Vedas and Upanishads, which is a case of retrofitting modern knowledge to be read into ancient texts
Vaiseshika has not utlized the tools and methods of Vedas to interpret these elements, because there are no such tools or methods in the Vedas. There is only wish-fulfillment voodoo and sacrificial mumbo-jumbo in them.
Ranganath,
DeleteYou expect people responding to your crap to be nice and polite but you respond to them in a abusive sence. That clearly exhibits your hypocracy.
I cannot convince a fool who has already made up his mind. I have given my sources which I am assuming you have not read because if did, you would not have written these words. You are that Jack who wants to make his point and is not open minded to understand other perspectives. It doesn't make a difference to any one in any way.
Can you provide your sources? I am curious and so would be others who read the insane crap. If you fail, I would have to assume that the crap you have been writing are merely illogical reasonings that are spawning in your unintelligent/biased brain.
Venkat,
DeleteMy responses to your comments starting with this one (October 29, 2012 at 10:28 PM)and subsequent have no personal abuse or name-calling in them. Yes, some aspects of your knowledge and/or ignorance of some scriptures were attacked. But there were no personal ad-homimen attacks on you.
You were the one starting and continuing to make personal attacks using uncivil phrases and terms.
Terming the claims of Vedas as nonsensical is not amounting to calling you nonsensical.
I have no personal enmity against any of the aggressive and belligerent responders. I do hit back strongly and defend my view-points, but I have always refrained from making personal accusations against any responder.
Now coming to your claims about Vedas in points 1-5, it is akin to throwing a library at your opponent after going off tangent from the specifics of Ch. Up to the generality of the Vedas.
Still I will respond in some measure to that. Points 1 & 2 are like testimonials from people (Vivekananda) and groups (RK Mutt) who are known to be predisposed to a favorably revisionist view of ancient Hindu/Vedic culture/religion. Their credentials and ideological motives are under question. It is like accepting the Church or a pastor's declaration that Christianity and Bible are scientific!!.
Coming to point 3 & 5, I have not disputed that Sankhya or Vaisesikha may have had some elements of proto-scientific thought. Still the theory that they are based on Rig Veda(RV), when the RV itself is devoid of any verifiable scientific specifics, is a spin that these authors are putting. That Roopa Narayan is mostly quoting S.Kak (who is himself a Hindutva revisionist) should raise suspicion and doubt about the true motives of the authors.
Coming to point no.4, the whole of the book is not an endorsement of ancient Indian secular thought being based on the Vedas. Please quote which chapter or specific opinion of the author B.K Matilal supports your claim. We can then engage further in disputation
Coming to my source, here is RV translated:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/
and Yajurveda (Black and White):
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/yv/index.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/wyv/index.htm
and Atharva Veda:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe42/index.htm
Please provide a verse or verses that contain descriptive theories or hypotheses relating to astronomy and astro-physics in them that are comparable to recent(last 300-400 years) findings in those disciplines.
Then we argue further and dispute, if you can maintain some civility
Ranganath,
ReplyDeleteYou are heights of hypocrisy. Go back and your comments, you will understand whether or not you have personally attacked me. Any ways, I am not going to cry like you do.
I have referred the very same links that you have sent me when I was kid. I have attempted to study with two elderly Sanskrit teachers who lived in my street. It took us very little time to conclude that we wouldn't understand any thing from those translations. Neither me nor any one would believe that a person like you would understand anything from these translations.
I remember you making a rude statement that "Vedas are wish fulfilling Voodoo. They are wish fulfilling, but how do you know that it is "Voodoo"? I am curious to know. Which part of these translations that you have sent made you make that stupid statement? Can you provide the numbers?
Let me educate you little bit here Son. Each veda has four parts. They are Mantras (I bet some one like you would understand ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from them), Brahmanas, Aranyakas & Upanishads. It is pretty clear now that you have been referring to Mantras alone. Aren't you ashamed of making so many statements, you have written big pile of trash here without have any knowledge of Vedas. Oh my god! You have got heights of insanity!
References to Brahmanas & Aranyakas are available in the sources I gave you. I will provide you exact page numbers for my claims. I am visiting the US and once I go back I will give you those page numbers. I am not an escapist like you are, so Stay tuned, I will surely send them!
Dear Venkat - don't waste your time discussing with Ranganath. He has made up his mind to only talk against. There are 4 types of arguments - Vada, Prativada, Jalsa and Vitanda. Amongst these, Vada is when someone wants to put forth his opinion. Prativada is when the other gives a counter to prove his point. Jalsa is when the focus turns from the argument to an I Am Right mode (ie instead of what is right, it becomes a fight for who is right). Vitanda is when you are shut out for all arguments and will lie, argue and defend only to show that you are correct. Ranganath belongs to that category of Vitanda.
ReplyDelete@Ranganath - translations cannot give you anything. You need to know the numeric methods of ancient times like Bhoota Sankhya and Katapayadi number system to understand the astro physics that existed in the cryptic verses of the Vedic times.
Here is a link to an expert who gave a lecture on these at the IIT. This should make you give some respect to our ancients: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv41pJT7500
Before even looking at the Youtube link provided by you, I knew it would be from the Hindu conservative and revivalist NGK or N Gopalakrishnan.
ReplyDeleteSo I was hardly surprised to find the lecture from this disgrace of a 'scientist' and purveyor of lies and distortions about Ancient Hinduism. The revisionist nonsense of NGK has been debunked and refuted apart from others by this article Hall of Shame: On a Hindutva Apologist’s Recent Lectures at IIT Madras( http://nirmukta.com/2012/09/05/hall-of-shame-on-a-hindutva-apologists-recent-lectures-at-iit-madras/)
Read this and enjoy your discomfiture and agony with my best compliements. For every revisionist ploy you Hindu rightists can throw at skeptics, we can respond in full and equal measure.
Your sour grapes of Vitanda did not impress me. And Good Luck with your Bhoota Sankhya and Katapayadi number systems!!! Would you like to add mambo-jumbo and gumbo-dumbo number systems to your astrophysics lingo babble??!!!
Looks like you people need some education about astrophysics itself!!!
I have no problems with the Ancient Indians or the Vedics. But I have a definite problem with the way desperate conservatives like you and more are window-dressing the works of the ancients.
Discomfiture and agony are for you to savour, not us. By the way, I don't think any of us are right wing activists here. The number systems you summed up pretty much as 'mumbo jumbo' are much acclaimed by those who have studied them. Also, lingo babble is what you seem to be indulging in most of the time. Anyway, the argument is laid to rest when you say that you have no problems with ancient Indians. Maybe I do not know everything about it, but what turns me off is the lack of humility you display when you seem to profess that all that is wrong - as if you know. Before you try to educate others, please educate yourself. The sour grapes are always out of reach for the fox!
ReplyDeleteYou don't have to be a right-wing activist to hold incredulous beliefs about ancient India and Hinduism. But you are most likely to be considered a Hindu nationalist and bigot.
DeleteMy sarcastic dig of mumbo-jumbo is not to deny the existence of ancient ethnic number systems. But using them to claim that Vedas have astrophysics theories and formulations in them is a ridiculous stretch of jingoistic imagination and revisionism. This is like the Bible code or Kabalah system which also claims that many discoveries and prophecies are mathematically encoded in their verses.
The time to discover or uncover the astrophysics in the Vedas/Samhitas and use for them scientific progress was in 1000 BCE to 1200 CE, not in the 21st Century when the developed world is way ahead of us. But during that timespan Indian civilization kept on declining till we ultimately were colonized by Mughals and then Brits.
If science and technology was really encoded in the Vedas of 1500 BCE or earlier, why was it not used to make rockets, missiles or even electronics in the Indian Early and Middle Ages. What happened to the advanced engineering of the Vedas and Shastras when Adi Sankara toured the length and breadth of India by foot.
Where were the flying chariots and the Pushpaka Vimana of the Puranas and Epics, when Adi Sankara so badly needed then to spread the poison of his Vedanta gospel all over India??!!!.
I have made this point elsewhere. We can make whatever claims we like about the advanced nature of ancient Indian civilization, but there should be evidence and that too strong smoking gun type one to support it.
We should be able to dig out advanced artifacts that point to use of sophisticated technologies in those times. All that we have been able to fish out are pottery, coins, toys, metals, parchments and carvings. That will not suffice as an attestation of our ancient technological advancement.
When you are not sure about the state of existence in ancient India, how can you easily buy into these kinds of huckster claims about our 'ultra-golden' past.
My humility or lack of it is of really little consequence. Hindu false pride is badly in need of reexamination and introspection. The problem is not so much my lack of humility but that people like you are very easily offended when many of your pet misguided notions are scrutinized and mocked at.