[Y-Indology] Obliterating 'Eastern Wisdom'.

[Guest guest]

In response to Malhotra and Thrasher, I would like to offer the following

very brief outline as to why India cannot contribute wisdom to the modern

world.

 

 

The wisdom that came out of India was used as fundamental concepts for the

development of the major religions and sciences. These basic concepts were

later altered as the mystical natures were removed to agree with the

mechanistic and materialistic views of developed Christian countries.

 

Ancient science, for instance, was defined to stand on the mystical elements

of earth, air fire and water. Christian thought could not consider that

these elements could be mystical (until Einstein) and were renamed mass,

space, energy and time. Similarly Christian thought removed the concept of

an inner personal power in the ‘heart’ (hridaya) and replaced it with the

beating ‘heart’ (Kardia) devoid of personal mystical powers. The view of a

higher state of existence or heaven on earth could not be tolerated with

Christian thought and likewise was diverted to an after death existence.

This was further prompted with attempting to make the Christian Heaven

different from the Jewish state of righteousness or earlier Eastern states

of enlightenment etc.

 

Since it is relatively easy to demonstrate that the early Christian

teachings do come from the East and ultimately from India (or Egypt?) the

source must be denied to allow Christianity (and hence the developed

countries) to become the sole source of truth. Similarly, modern science in

separating itself from religion must deny any non-materialistic or mystical

concepts to remain separate from religion and hence any Eastern

contributions.

 

The result is of course, as you have noticed, that there is no wisdom or

contributions to the modern world that could have come forth from India.

 

regards

Bob Peck

rpeck

[Guest guest]

> Ancient science, for instance, was defined to stand on the mystical

elements

> of earth, air fire and water. Christian thought could not consider

that

> these elements could be mystical (until Einstein) and were renamed

mass,

> space, energy and time.

 

I must protest this representation.

 

In India, the nyAya, vaizeshika, sAMkhya and vedAnta schools of

thought did not consider earth, air, fire and water to be "mystical"

elements. There is a lot of "material"ism in Indian discussions of the

elements. Neither is everything that is Eastern mystical, nor is

everything that is mystical Eastern.

 

Air, water, fire and earth were not renamed mass, space, energy and

time by Christian thought. Einstein did not reinstate a concept of

mystical elements. His theory of relativity is based not on air, fire,

water and earth, but on a fundamentally new scientific vision of

space-time and mass-energy. Indeed, Christian thought had little to

contribute to the development of science. If any "Western" source is

to be found for science, look primarily towards classical Greece and

medieval Europe, not towards the Vatican. The physical and biological

sciences developed in the recent past, only because of a willingness

to step out of the bounds of received Christian theology, but that is

an entirely different story.

 

For that matter, Indians have contributed significantly to the

progress of "Western" science, and continue to do so, whether through

mystical insight or through more mundane thought processes. As

eamples, I will only cite Srinivasa Ramanujam, Sir C V Raman, S

Chandrasekhar, Meghnad Saha, S N Bose, J C Bose and G N Ramachandran

(whose contribution to biophysics and biochemistry deserved a Nobel

prize, and who passed away a few weeks ago). Then we have the numerous

unnamed scientists in India who are splitting atoms and sending

satellites into space. Part of crediting us Indians with the power of

agency includes acknowledging their contemporary ability in science

and technology.

 

A host of others among us, with lesser contributions to our credit,

are involved in scientific work. Some of us also have a clear affinity

for ancient Indian wisdom, which is often seen as mystical and

therefore irrational. On the other hand, intellectual work always

challenges artificial boundaries.

 

Vidyasankar

[Guest guest]

When China, Japan and southeastern countries imported Indian Buddhism

there were no hard feelings on either side. Neither Indians felt

superior nor did the any one feel inferior. There was complete

acknowledgement of the flow of thoughts and left a good taste.

 

It seems that the post Judaic religions were born of a sense of

competition in which they use as much material they can grab from

eastern, mystical, Judaic sources but deny such borrowing. So the

attitude is still materialistic: treat religion as a material. I am

not sure common man in the west feels this way, but this seems to be

dominant view of those who run the show in academics or faith.

 

Is this discussion going to be ever productive?

 

By the way how can a purely materialistic view of religion even stand

the test of science & logic when the basic question of what is life

is not settled? Somewhere mystery is needed, like creating Adam or

Eve.. or was that science? Can any pope repeat the trick? Is faith a

material?

 

Or do I have to accept that there was mystery in the beginning (Adam,

Eve, etc), then came materialism, and finally turning into mystery

(Einstien etc).

 

Or is it that only the mystery invented by Einstien is authentic but

not the mystery invented by ancient Indians?

 

There are enough creation stories in Hinduism but there are enough

critics also who don't believe it. It looks like the wide spectrum of

eastern thought is reduced to "essentials" and a narrow (non-

spectrum) of western thought is projected as truth which is ever

changing from one century to the next. So when are we going to get

the "final" version? Did anything happen on Y2K day? :-)

 

Regards

Bhadraiah

[Guest guest]

Bhadraiah wrote:

 

> It seems that the post Judaic religions were born of a sense of

> competition in which they use as much material they can grab from

> eastern, mystical, Judaic sources but deny such borrowing.

 

It would also seem that the situation surrounding the emergence of the early

Christian church was somewhat more complex thatn this suggests. For

example, by the Jewish War of 70-74CE which culminated in the destruction of

Jerusalem, the Jews were regarded in very bad odour by the Roman

authorities. It would be quite natural for gentile christians who might be

suspected of pro-Jewish sympathies to do eveything they could to distance

themelvs from their Jewish antecendents for the sake of survival. One notes

that the profoundly anti-Semitic portions of the Christian Bible (the Gospel

of John etc) are commonly accepted as post 74CE compositions. Also many

elements of early Christian theology were adopted from the Gnostics rather

than from Judaism but, you are right here, they did their best to conceal

this fact.

 

Best wishes,

Stephen Hodge

[Guest guest]

Vidyasankar responds to:

 

>> Ancient science, for instance, was defined to stand on the mystical

elements

>> of earth, air fire and water. Christian thought could not consider that

>> these elements could be mystical (until Einstein) and were renamed mass,

>> space, energy and time.

 

With:

>I must protest this representation.>>Air, water, fire and earth were not

renamed mass, space, energy and time by Christian thought. Einstein did not

reinstate a concept of mystical elements.

 

It is difficult to find energy described as a mystical element even in

modern science books. Energy is generally treated as being tangible and

identifiable. The early view however, of energy was that it was a mystical

presence contained in materials (phlogiston) that could take many forms when

released. Early religions described gods that used various forms of energy

to create or control matter. (Similarr aruments can be presented for the

mystical nature of the other elements.)

 

Modern science is built upon four basic units of measurement namely, mass,

length, time and generally energy. Any number of different fundamental units

could have been chosen but the final choice corresponds with the early units

of earth, air, fire and water. The ancients also used the term ‘ether’ that

was used for a while by science until it was recognized as unnecessary.

 

Modern Christianity denied the earlier (and nearly universal) model of an

inner dwelling power described by the Gnostics (and others). In doing so,

the source of creative energy had to be transferred to the heavens above as

well as any mystical characteristics in the physical world. The difference

between sinners and righteous became blurred and the righteous became

adherents to church law rather than to an inner power. This can of course be

compared with the now politically incorrect concept of the existence of

awakend, enlightened, or even the self-actualized individuals described by

Maslow.

 

The brilliance of Einstein restates the earlier views of the mystical nature

of the universe and certainly counters the prior Christian view of a

materialistic unchanging fully created universe. Mass, length, time and

energy can now be considered as mystical elements similar to the very early

views.

 

I sincerely apologize if any of my short comments were taken to deny the

contributions of India to science. I too believe that it many ways they led

the West.

 

I also fully agree with your statement:

..>The physical and biological sciences developed in the recent past, only

because of a >willingness to step out of the bounds of received Christian

theology, but that is

>an entirely different story.

 

with much respect,

Bob Peck

rpeck

[Guest guest]

>Ancient science, for instance, was defined to stand on the mystical

>elements of earth, air fire and water. Christian thought could not

>consider that these elements could be mystical (until Einstein) and

>were renamed mass, space, energy and time.

 

Jokes apart, the argument about mystical nature of elements is that,

we will never know the real nature of objects (elements like earth,

fire etc.) other than as concepts of those objects within our own

mind. Even if we get to know the real nature of objects, such

knowledge is not dependable because the knowledge about perceiver is

not known! Any invalid assumption about perceiver will invalidate the

accumulated objective knowledge. As the concepts of the mind are

always dynamic, every thing is sentient.

 

ai.br v.22: "This earth, in the beginning was bare, she saw this

spell (RV.x.189); this dappled color, of various forms entered her;

whither she desired, whatever there is here, plants, birds all forms

(entered her)".

 

How could the earth see and chant Rg vedic hymns? It is the Rsi who

is doing on behalf of earth!

 

Regards

Bhadraiah