This is what my friend wrote:
“Even though it has been noted that Indian/eastern philosophies and modern physics share many points in common, it is very difficult to say whether our ancestors including great persons were aware about the existence of world. Lots of interpretations are done to match with the present day scientific theories and many religionist create pseudo science and try to stop the human thinking process by creating closed form solution with God. Shankara and Gita did the same. Only Gauthama Buddha went out of this recursion of God loop and tried to visulize the universe. He is one of the founding person of Suniyavadam (net=0) and concept of no creator or creation (no ininitial thought of superbeing to create Universe).
Sankara and his advidam is complete opposite to this thoughts and even destroyer of this modern thoughts. His life long struggle against Buddishm and Jainism really pushed back this modern thinking, nothing else.
Then, Tao of Physics is, in fact was, a good book. He tries to super impose cyclotron pictures with dance of Sive and tried to explain the accidental coincidence with estern philosophies. Some times his theories were misleading new/young readers those who do not have preliminary knowledge in modern science. In reality our ancestor's so called knowledge didn't bring either any major idealogical changes or real changes to the world. during their time. In reality many scientist need to spent their life and energy and countries to shell out lots of money to understand many scientific unknowns. Let them do since their brain is curious.
Telling that our ancestors knows everything, may bring some false proud but nothing more. I get some time irritated when people equates the civil engineering with vastu sastra.
In the ligher side, I started writting this when I noticed many are becoming emotional with Kashmir issue and started suspecting others patriotism!. I tried to move the attention from Kashmir issues to this hypotheitical issue. Don't spent too much time in reading this or Gita or Fritjof Copra... Just look at the broad sky and natures around. Even the concept of country (including politics and army) and religion and associate emotions are just created to have control over others (earlier days ordinary folks used to die in thoushand in fighting other king, because their king wanted to marry the princess of other king!). Have a nice weekday. Just open the window. see the colorful sky”
This is my response .
1. Beauty beholds in the eyes of the viewer. It is true for any other fact also, including religion and science. Our individual idiosyncrasies define how we see the world.
2. It was only during the last century or so that modern science started finding similarities between eastern philosophies (including Indian) and the findings of modern science. Before that any of these philosophical thoughts might have been termed as foolish or superstitious. Can we say with confidence that what ever similarities could be established have already been established and now all the latest findings of science are proving or will be proving that our philosophies were all wrong?
3. Our philosophers or Gurus (Philosophy and religion are not separate in Hinduism or Buddhism) did not go to the scientific community to validate their thoughts. If their souls went to the scientists with such requests is not known. However, what is certainly known is that most of the similarities were found by the western scientists after years of research. They were not working to establish such similarities, but they found that such similarities exist and they told the world about it.
4. No body can say that everything has been understood about the existence of world. With modern science telling us that the universe is ever expanding; it will never be possible to know everything about the universe with scientific tools and techniques. It however remains a possibility that such knowledge can be gained after transcending the limits of time and effect. This was the method adopted by our seers in their quest for truth. If we can not say they knew more; how can we say that they knew less?
5. It is also a belief strongly held by pseudo scientists that religion stops the human thinking processes. It is a known fact that our sages had acquired a lot of knowledge about mathematics, medicine, astronomy etc. There was no separate title of scientist, as religion, science and all knowledge was interwoven. Einstein is considered as one of the greatest scientists and this is what he has said.
“For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capable, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence. “
6. History tells us that Shankaracharya grew up during a time of unrest and strife, of spiritual bankruptcy, and of social discord. There were literalists and ritualists (can’t find a proper and better English world) who were holding on to the scriptures, missing their spirit, and there were nihilists and iconoclast who were out to destroy all that was sacred and old”. All the teaching get diluted and maligned as they pass from generation to generation. Then they loose their importance and a new spiritual teacher is required who provides guidance suitable to that time. Shankaracharya was such a spiritual teacher.
It was an established practice by scholars of the time of Shankara to debate various issues to gain more understanding of the nature of existence. It is not correct to say that he opposed Buddha. Shankara has mentioned Buddha as the ninth incarnation. Thus it seems impossible that he aimed to oppose Buddha. It is well known that After Buddha the Buddhists were also divided into separate schools of thought and they define Sunyata (emptiness is a better world to define it than zero) in different ways. For Madymika School (Nagarjuna) this is the main principle while some other schools do not give it the same importance. So which definition leads to real nirvana? How many Buddhists could attain the Buddha status after Gautam Buddha?
7. It is true that Shankara did not approve of certain thoughts of Buddhism. But he was also not in complete agreement with orthodox Sanatan Dharma. His philosophy was a totally new interpretation to Upanishads. Ramanuja’s philosophy ( who came after Shankara) is again ways apart from Shankara although both refer Vedas and Upanishads for their source. Shankara lived only for 32 years. He achieved so much in such a short life span. It is not possible for a man filled with hatred towards others or for a man whose main aim is just to oppose other great people, to reach such spiritual and philosophical heights.
8. Infinite series is not considered as closed loop solution in theoretical mathematics. Hindu Philosophy has always maintained that there are infinite ways to find the truth of existence (mostly termed God). It is also taugt that the universe or the existence is also infinity. No end No beigning? You call this closed loop soultion? Just for the fun of using a technical word?
So it is not correct that Gita and Shankara and other Hindu philosophers were destroyer of any modern thought. In Gita Lord Krishna mentions different paths to attain the truth. It depends on the personal choice and attitude to select the one which suits him best. Selecting one does not negate the virtues of the other path. Neither it is said anywhere that only one path leads to truth. Everyone can attain nirvana in this life time or next if the desire and discipline is there. But how many have that? If a child can not add 2+2 it shows his lack of knowledge, it does not make the mathematics false and useless.
9. What is Vastu Sastra? Isn’t it the form of civil engineering practiced by our ancestors? It happened that this science was forgotten with time. Multitudes of grand building and temples built in India and also in other countries before civil engineering was taught in its’ present form gives ample proof that our ancestors (Indians as well as others) had acquired appreciable knowledge in this field.
How much do we know about Vastu? What most of us know is from reading some paperbacks published on this subject. Can we say with certainty that the writers of such books have completely understood this science or can we say that all the knowledge of this science was saved during our long history of foreign rule and is now available to these writers? But whatever is known, does it defy the basic principles of building design any where?
We have better computing abilities than few decades earlier. That does not mean that engineers of that time were nothing in our comparison. Every field of knowledge (including science and spirituality) will see new developments with time. That does not mean that posterity shall laugh at the ancestors.
Instead of smelling arrogance after tucking an engineering degree wouldn’t it be better if our engineers also try to understand our ancestral science and apply that to their design if possible and feasible?
10. What is meant by significant ideological or real changes? Didn’t our ancestors teach the world basic mathematics as is known today? Didn’t our ancestors know much more about our solar system and planets than the western world knew a few centuries ago? Didn’t our ancestors who developed Aurveda did a great job in understanding medical science and the relation of mind and body. The so called modern (western) science has also started to accept this mind body relation, but they are far from understanding it completely. At the same time it would be unwise to call modern medical science as useless stuff. Everything has its place in the system and shall be judiciously used.
Talking about ideological changes, some of the greatest spiritual teachings in form of Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, and Sikhism came from India. They were not only meant for sadhus or Bhikshus. They laid their impression on everybody in the society and in all walks of life. They showed a way of life to the common man.
If we talk about materialistic achievements, India was called golden bird a few centuries ago. But materialistic gains were never considered the main purpose of life by our spiritual leaders and through them the general public. Compassion, sharing, peace, love, knowledge were far more valued than anything else.
11. The work of modern day scientists deserves appreciation for their knowledge and devotion for learning. But if we say that our ancestors failed than these scientists have also failed miserably. In spite of all the knowledge gained and millions and billions spent on research the basic problems of hunger, disease, and poverty are still growing. To this we have added new problems of air and water pollution. Nuclear science has given capacity to finish the world in few seconds. Humanity is loosing ground and intolerance is increasing. Moreover most of the research toady is sponsored one which aims to profit a few people instead of doing good for all. Otherwise what is the need of patents on new research?
12. it’s certainly not true that our ancestors knew everything. It is never possible, otherwise all progress will stop. Saying such a thing would certainly be foolish. But denying due appreciation to our ancestors would be even more foolish. It would be suicidal also. A society needs to have self respect and certain amount of pride to develop. Acknowledging our ancestors achievements provides us that.
Navnit
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment