Ancient and Medieval achievements of the Indians

Vajra said:

I will give you a 100 % since you posted the sources as well.It is like as if reading an article from Wikipedia with references.Quite well written

Click to expand...

Thank you, although let me just correct a typo as I had a bit of a mental fart getting Mr Huxley's first name wrong. It is not Audery but Aldous Huxley

Nothing much suprised or shocked me since i already know much about Vedanta and beyond Vedanta.Currently i am interested in Vedic theology found in Brahmanas and early Vedas,i am searching for the roots of Vedanta in them.

Click to expand...

Where did you learn about this knowledge? Formally at school or informally outside of school or in a traditional ashram?

tornada said:

I am skeptical of a quite a few things. However the vast majority of your work is well grounded and well researched, certainly the intent behind is not at fault. you deserve atleast 80-90% credit. My disagreements with you are on a few points. On the vast majority that i agree with you, i will of-course raise no doubts. keep up the excellent work

Click to expand...

Thank you very much Tornado, this compliment coming from you means a lot to me and is very much appreciated.

I just wanted to show you Tornada using an example to show you what I mean by how India gets edited out in mainstream academic discourses.

Read these two articles on transcendentalism on mainstream academic web sites:

American Transcendentalism*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
Transcendentalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Look for the word "India" or "Vedanta" in both of these articles(both are posted on major academic internet encyclopedia, which do carry articles on Indian philosophy) how many instances do you find? In the first article it mentions German influence, it mentions British influence, but it makes not a single allusion to an Indian influence. Is this not ironic, considering just how significant Vedanta's influence was on Emerson, Thoreau and the entire transcendentalist movement, that its own founders even quoted liberally from Vedas, Upanishads and Gita?

This is why I say this a case of plagiarism and not inspiration. Western philosophy has liberally borrowed from Indian philosophy, but the credit is not given or seldom ever given.

Somebody reading my article on transcendentalism will learn about how significant Indian philosophy was in shaping it, but anybody reading these two official Academic articles will not have the slightest inkling.

Vajra said:

I learned it on my own,did a lot of search on the internet I also did lot of search about IVC,AIT,Vedic era etc...currently researching on Vedic ritualism and concept of God in early Vedic era.I am addicted to these things.

I come from a Bhakti or devotional background,but i prefer Jnana or knowledge over Bhakti

Click to expand...

I am not surprised, everything I learned about Indian philosophy was informally through internet, reading journal articles(such as JSTOR, Philosophy East and West) and books. I did not get taught anything about India either at school, college or University, except once in Sociology at college where I learned about how evil the caste system was and once at University in one module on world philosophy there was one lesson on Vedanta, which was rushed and brushed over and criticized by my professor as "the basis of modern hippy culture"

I am more Jnana myself too, though have tried to cultivate Bhakti, but I struggle with a belief in a personal God. I find myself vacillating between personal god and impersonal god, but recently I have become more agnostic.

tornada said:

I really cannot comment on this since i have no clue what Transcendentalism really is. I'll take your word for it if you say it has Indian links and those are being suppressed. I don't deny that hasn't happened. The Americans tried to patent Yoga, I'll believe anything of them

Click to expand...

Hehe, you don't have to take my word for it, just read the article and look at the section on American idealism/transcendentalism, where I have made explicit the Indian links or just watch either of the video presentations.

You have correctly recognized that the West/Americans have even tried to patent Yoga and delink Yoga from Hinduism.

So Indian people are faced with a choice, they can either let the West constantly suppress their achievements and the legacy of their influence on Western philosophy and science, or they need to start speaking up and exposing it. Like I said earlier, if this was the Chinese, they would never have put up with it. They would have probably stopped all trade with Western countries and sent legions of Chinese scholars to the West to put things right.

Indians need to grow in their confidence and self-esteem and assert themselves.

mansamusa said:

Walt Whitman was no philosopher but Emerson was one of his fans i believe exactly because he recognized his kind of Indian mysticism in Whitman. i dunno about the world of philosophy but in the world of literature it is commonly accepted that Whitman and the transcendentalist were inspired by Indian philosophy.

Hinduism & American Literature - Emerson, James, Melville, Whitman, Thoreau...

Click to expand...

Even the article you post on about.com is written by a Hindu writer. However, those two mainstream articles I just posted from IEP and SEP, which are recognized academic resource used by all academics around the world, from which one would not get the slightest ever inkling that there was a prevalent Indian influence on the Transcendentalists. The India connection has been edited out in both articles.

I did not study literature in America, so I don't know how common this knowledge is in America, but I certainly did not learn of it at school and my friend who majored in English at University didn't learn of it either. If it was that common, Philip Goldberg would not have have written American Veda to document the Indian connections on the Transcendentalists and other major American philosophers and intellectuals.

What I am saying is there is mostly definitely an academic agenda against India and India gets edited out of major academic discourse in important subjects like science and philosophy. Come on, Thomas Mcveilly is hardly a conspiracy theorist, he is a serious scholar, and not Indian himself and even he says explicitly "It is being actively suppressed" Indian scholars are too now noticing the same such as Rajiv Malhotra, who was instrumental recently in getting some edits done in the California Hindu textbook controversy.

Indian people need to take stock of this and put things right. (Not just Indians, but all honest historians need to recognize how unjust and corrupt this is, such as Thomas Mcveilly or N Kanusus)

The very first thing that can be done and can be easily proven is history of science. I will show in the next section all the major Indian scientific discoveries, theories and achievements - and which should be common world knowledge.

Sunyata said:

Thanks for all your work, it really is appreciated
And its been very educative and has helped me understand some of the lesser known links between Indian and western philosophy. Also want to say that the links you provide are certainly great for further research. Now that exams are over I will certainly start to delve into this subject matter, and the links you provide are a great help for me.

And BTW your understanding and explanation of the various ideas is great and you managed to summarize the important points beautifully.
Do you mind If I use your article as a reference to create my own presentation on Indian philosophy? Which I wish to present at Philosophy club meeting at my college. My club buddies dont know anything about Indian philosophy and I wanted to do a presentation to give them a sort of introduction to it.

Click to expand...

Thank you, I consider it worthwhile even if one person gains from and learns about the great history of science and philosophy in India from my articles. I do not mind at all if you reference my articles, in fact I feel honored. (Though if I knew some of my articles were going to be referenced, I would certainly proofread it more exhaustively before submission lol)

I am currently working on section 5, my favourite section because it is about science! I just completed 5.1(Atomic sciences) I wonder whether I should post each sub-section one by one, as I anticipate section 5 will take much longer to complete than the others.

5.0. Pure sciences

Finally, we have come to section 5. I promise this section is going to a treasure trove of knowledge and I will keep my own explanations to the minimum, as science is about facts and not philosophical explanations. I anticipate there is going to be a lot of skepticism about my revelations, probably more than my previous revelations about ancient uses of nanotechnology and possible microscopes, this is why I have made it a point to collect a number of references to corroborate each claim, so there will be plenty of material to peruse to test the validity of the claims.


When I use the word “Pure science” I am referring to the theory of science rather than the application. Hence, just because the theory of atoms is understood, it does not necessarily mean that one can build atomic reactors. A theory can be proposed several centuries before it can be applied empirically, for empirical validation of a theory requires the necessary advances in material technology. Why are the Darsanas pure sciences and not “philosophical systems” as they are usually translated? The answer is because a Darsana is a paradigm based on a set of theories developed from empirical evidence and inferences drawn from the evidence. They mirror paradigms in our modern world such as:

Newtonian and GR: Nyaya-Vaiseshika
Quantum mechanical and psychology: Samkhya-Yoga
Linguistic-constructivist: Mimassa-Vedanta
Phenomenology: Buddhism
Post-modern: Jainism
Materialism: Charvaka

Like all pure science, the Darsanas have a scientific method to arrive at their theories.

5.1. The scientific method

The scientific method is first clearly described in the Nyaya Sutras[/u] of Gotama which are dated 100-200AD, however this date is not justifiable argues Radhakrishnan, an eminnent modern Indian philosopher in his volumous work history of Indian philosophy, given that the author who gave this date himself dated it 550BCE originally, and only changed it to 100-200AD because of his later belief the Nyaya Sutras were influenced by Aristotle, which has never been proven(In fact the logic of the Nyaya is the opposite of Aristotle). There is plenty of evidence to show that Nyaya-Sutras cannot be any later than 400-500BCE, because

1. The founder of Nyaya Gautama is mentioned in the Mahabharata(500BCE)
2. The means of knowledge of the Nyaya are mentioned in the Yoga Sutras(200BCE)
3. There are quotations from the Nyaya sutras in the Charaka Samhita(200BCE)
4. The Nyaya methods are also described in the Vaiseshika Sutras(600BCE)
4. The science of Nyaya in the form of Anviksiki is mentioned in the Arthshastra(400-300BCE)
5. The tradition of formal debating goes back to the Upanishad era

The Nyaya sutras treats of the issue of epistemology(the methods to obtain knowledge) and correct principles of reasoning, debate and rhetoric.
Although it can considered a textbook on logic, it presents a scientific method of how to obtain knowledge. There are four valid means of knowledge called pramanas(proofs) via which one can obtain knowledge

1. Perception
2. Inference
3. Testimony
4. Analogy/Comparison

Perception is the most important means of knowledge, because all other knowledge depends on it. Inference relies on previous observation, and testimony relies on inferences of word meanings. Analogy/comparison relies on testimony.

Perception

NS.4. Perception is that knowledge which arises from the contact of a sense with its object, and which is determinate [well defined], unnameable [not expressible in words], and non erratic [unerring].[2]​

Meaning: The conditions of what constitute valid perception is when the senses contact the object and not what is remembered, or what is named(name proceeds the act of perception) and which is definite and doubtless e.g., I can say definitely that Jason is standing at the street corner, and not doubtful that it could be Jason but it might be John too. I can say definitely the clock has struck 2pm and not 4pm.

That your perception is correct and accurate is crucial in science, because if it is not, then one will misinterpret their results.

NS.5. Inference is knowledge which is preceded by perception, and is of three kinds, viz., a priori, a posteriori and “commonly seen.”​

After a perception has taken place, one can draw three different kinds of inferences from it

1. Priori, perceived effect to perceivable cause. It has rained, rain is the mark of rain clouds, therefore there must have been a rain cloud.
2. Posteriori, perceived cause to perceivable effect. This man has taken fatal poison, fatal poison is the mark of death, therefore this man will die
3. Commonly seen, perceived effect to non-perceivable cause. The grass sways, its movement is the mark of a force acting on it, therefore there must be a wind.

These type of inferences are known as inductive inferences, this means that you generalize something you cannot perceive(at the time) from a particular observation. In such inferences the premises do not guarantee the conclusion, because it is possible your observation is mistaken, your rule is not always correct. In contrast, a deductive inference always guarantees its conclusion because it proceeds from a general definition to its particular premises. The typical inference of this type is an Aristotelian 3 step syllogism

1.All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore Socrates is immortal

The problem with such an argument is that you can never discover anything new with it, it works because of existing definitions like mathematics(2+2=4) In science, we use inductive inferences to discover new theorems and rules in nature. (This is why scientific progress came to a halt after Aristotle, and was not resumed again till Galileo)

We observe x effect happens when y happens(effect-cause)
We formulate a hypothesis that x is the cause of y
We set up a controlled experiment to isolate the variables x and y
We repeat the experiment several times to establish the rule that if x then y
We declare the rule as confirmed

This is what is called the scientific method. It uses inductive logic to discover new knowledge. In the West it was devised through the thinking of Bacon and Mill, although Bacon himself learned it from the Arabic book of optics, where the protocols for modern scientific experiments were laid out

Let us see one application of it:

1.I observe that when I put in the Bunsen flame Sodium the flame turn yellow
2.I formulate a hypothesis that the Sodium is the cause of the Bunsen flame turning yellow
3. I set up a controlled experiment with three Bunsen burners with the same flame colour of blue, one in which has Sodium, one which has nothing and one which has Lithium
4. The experiment is repeated several times showing the presence of Sodium always gives a yellow colour
5. The rule is established that Sodium always causes a yellow colour in the blue flame.

The rule has to be always true for it to be established as a rule. If there is even one instance where sodium does not produce a yellow colour the rule is violated. Now that I have the rule I can infer that whenever I see the Bunsen flame turn yellow that Sodium is present .(There are much more sophisticated ways of course to diagnose an element, such as mass spectroscopy, but it uses the same method of reasoning)

The Nyaya describe exactly the same method which is also known as the 5 step Indian syllogism:

1. State the proposition/hypothesis to be proven
2. State the rule which proves the proposition
3. Give an established empirical example which is non-controversial and established from previous observations
4. Show that the empirical example relates to the current proposition
5. Confirm the proposition

The standard stock example which is used to illustrate this

1. There is fire on the hill
2. Because there is smoke on the hill
3. Where there is smoke there is fire, such as in the kitchen
4. Here there is also smoke on the hill
5. Therefore there is fire on the hill

In this syllogism the hill is the minor term (the locus of the observation) the smoke is the middle term(reason) and fire is the major term(the conclusion to be proven). This argument is only sound if the rule - if smoke then fire is invariably concomitant and true in all conditions. The rule if fire then smoke is not invariably concomitant because fire only produces smoke under specific conditions and not all conditions.

All the Darsanas(except Charvaka which rejected inference as a valid means of knowledge) used this method to establish their theories. If they could not show any empirical examples that confirmed their hypothesis, their hypothesis were rejected. No different to how in modern science if we cannot experimentally confirm a hypothesis, the hypothesis is rejected.
The rule(part 3 of the syllogism) must be invariably related to the proposition for the inference to be valid.

There are five formal fallacies when the rule is not valid, called hetu-bashas(blockers of reason) [3]

1. fallacy of deviation occur when the prover or inferential sign is not reliably correlated with the inferential target(;
2. fallacies of contradiction occur when the prover in fact establishes a conclusion opposed to the thesis that someone defends.
3. fallacies of unestablishment occur when a supposed prover is not actually the property of the inferential subject.
4. argumentsare rebutted, when their conclusions are undermined by information gleaned by more secure knowledge sources.
5. arguments are counterbalanced when counterarguments of equal or greater force are put forth in support of an opposing conclusion.​

1. The inconclusive, when there is no relationship of invariable concomitantance between the major and middle term or there are other explanations possible(also known as abduction) e.g. if fire then smoke, as there are cases where there is fire and no smoke, fire is not the sign of smoke
2. Contradictory, when the middle term actually contradicts the major term e.g, the fire burns because it is cold, or the objects falls because of lightness
3. Controversial/unestablished, when the middle term itself is in need of proof e.g., The volcano erupts because of the gods are unhappy, or universe is fine tuned because there are infinite universes. In absence of empirical evidence the reason cannot be tenable
4. Refuted. When the middle term is refuted by another form of evidence e.g., Heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects is refuted by experiment. Any proposition or theory which is refuted by hard empirical evidence cannot stand.
5. Counter-balanced. When the middle term can be neutralized with an opposite claim e.g., the glass is half full, because it is half empty is neutralized by the glass is half empty, because it is half full or sound is eternal because it can be heard is neutralized by sound is non-eternal because it is produced

We can get an idea then how strict the standards were in the Darsanas for putting forward propositions. If the major term and middle term were not invariably related and this could not be demonstrated with empirical evidence, then the proposition failed. Thus each Darsana had to make sure there propositions were precise, tight and as fool-proof as possible. Every single point within a theory had to be defended. These standards are very similar to modern scientific standards. One of the reasons for why this obsession with precision existed was to counter the challenge of the skeptics(Charvaka) of the problem of induction. The Charvaka(like Hume later, who mostly likely knew of the Charvaka) challenged induction as a valid means of knowledge, because it generalized from particular limited instances in time that two things are related, but this relationship itself cannot be seen. It could be just chance that the two things were always related, and in the next instance they may not be. [4]

In order to answer this challenge, much like modern epistemology and modern philosphy of science, the Nyaya formulated various strategies to test that a rule is valid. Dignaga(480-540CE) a prominent Buddhist logician formulates the hetuchakra(wheel of reason) to prove the validity of a rule[5]

1. The rule must be observed in the situation at present
2. The rule must have been observed in the past
3. The rule must not be present in an opposing situation​

This is the rationale behind a controlled experiment, in order to isolate the rule if x then y, then variables of x and not x must both be tested e.g., to test if fire is the cause of smoke, an experiment can be set one with fire being kindled and one with a cold lake, if smoke can be observed in the cold lake too then it means smoke can be caused by the opposite of fire and therefore the rule is refuted.

Now you can begin to understand why the Darsanas are pure science, everything that they postulate is based on empirical evidence. The inferences drawn from the evidence must be invariably related to it. In formal arguments when Darsanas went to head to head the onus was on the Darsana to prove every single statement they made by showing empirical evidence to corroborate it.

There is nothing of comparable level of sophistication in Greek literature, again as we find consistently with Indian philosophical and scientific works, the only closest analogue is found in modern times. Much of the Nyaya theories and discussions are current theories and discussions in epistemology and philosophy of science.

References

1. History of Indian Philosophy, Nyaya-Vaiseshika
2. Nyaya Sutras » Book I, Chapter I
3.Nyaya[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
4.Lokayata/Carvaka Indian Materialism*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
5.[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetucakra]Hetucakra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


Further reading and resources on Nyaya:

Epistemology in Classical Indian Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Online series of lectures on Nyaya from IIT:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ud_9SLBiJY]Mod-05 Lec-15 The Nyaya Philosophy - I - YouTube[/ame]

Just a minor correction of the typo above, without which the argument sounds like nonsense:

1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Socrates is mortal

The same can be expressed in the Indian syllogism:

1. Socrates is mortal
2. Because he is a man
3. All men are mortal, just like all men who were previously born necessarily died to
4. Here too Socrates is a man
5. Therefore Socrates is mortal

The difference between Aristotle's syllogism and Indian syllogism is profound, the claim "All men are mortal" is not proven by any empirical examples, it is merely stated as as fact. In Indian logic this is a fallacy of the unproven/established, without showing empirical examples that all men are mortal, this is not tenable. As Aristotle did not give much importance to empirical observation and showing that the middle term and major term are invariably related, he developed wrong theories of physics, which took more than 1000 years to overturn in Western science. In contrast, as we will see in due course of this section, the Indians gave correct theories of physics because they were using a valid scientific method.

5.2. Atomic sciences

The Vaiseshika(meaning atomism/particularity) school is the Indian school of natural philosophy and physics. The Vaiseshika had developed their physical theories to an astonishing level of sophistication anticipating modern theories of physics. Like all Darsanas, it has a foundational sutra text, the Vaiseshika sutras(VS) composed by Kanada(600BCE)[1] which summarizes the theories of the school in various areas. The next most important texts were composed by Prashastapada(various dates: 200, 600AD) Various Nyaya-Vaiseshika philosophers then added commentaries to both texts up until the late medieval ages. I will show you the sutras and the kind of argument framed in the 5 member Indian syllogism which were used by them to prove their propositions.

Vaiseshika classification system

All science begins with a classification system in order to classify substances into elements and groups. The earliest classification system used in ancient times was the 5 elements (literally fire, earth, air and water) and animal, mineral and vegetable classification system which is of course primitive and sketchy and it is hard to do science with such an imprecise system. In early modern times we used the Cartesian classification of mind and matter defined by the properties that matter is divisible and extended and mind is indivisible and not extended (i.e., not spatial and temporal) In later modern times we used the Periodic table to classify the chemical elements, and in contemporary times we use the Standard model to classify elementary particles. We do not yet possess a complete system of classification that can account for all entities like space, time, mind and consciousness.

The Vaiseshika classification system is arguably the most analytical, comprehensive and precise system of the classification of our empirical world because it accounts for all entities of our world, it for this reason why Vaiseshika when synthesized with Nyaya is considered the equivalent to modern analytical philosophy.[2] The empirical world is classified into 7 broad categories: Substances, qualities, actions, class, species, inherence and absence. As this article is not intended to be a primer on Vaiseshika philosophy, I will only focus on the physical categories substances, qualities and actions and here too, on the sub-classes physical matter and space and time( ignoring mind and consciousness) and also cite directly from the VS[3]

Substance/Laws of matter

A substance is that which has qualities and can undergo actions e.g. Sugar is a substance because it has the quality of the taste sweetness and it can undergo actions such as I can move sugar from one point to another. A substance thus cannot be identified as just a lump of something, but it known as an aggregate of qualities and actions(It is for this reason the Buddhists reject the actual existence of substance, as it nothing more than a fleeting states of changing qualities and actions)

The remarkable contribution of Kanada, for which his namesake is known(literally, the eater of atoms) was the theory that all material substances are made out of atoms. Atomism, however, is not just unique to Kanada, who propounded the Hindu version of atomic theory, but was the central thought and doctrine of Buddism and Jainism too. Each gave their own variation of atomic theory. The centrality of atomic theory within Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism is perhaps owing to the fact that the earliest precursor to the notion of atoms is found in the Upanishads, for example the dialogue with Uddalaka asking his son to split a seed into its parts and that too into its parts(discussed earlier). The focus in this article will be Kanada’s theories, but it is worth very briefly describing the Buddhist and Jain versions too.

Buddhist atomic theory: The Buddhist’s considered atoms to be flashes of energy taking place moment to moment, very similar to modern particle physics of fermions etc flashing in and out of existence. It is now known in quantum physics that particles do indeed flash in and out of existence momentarily[4]

Jain atomic theory: The Jains considered atoms to be units of motion(karma) moving about at tremendous speed across the universe, many times the speed of light. The Jains conceptualize atoms in terms of potential existence with no sensible properties, and real with sensible properties, a dead ringer for modern wave-particle duality theory.[5]

It should be pointed out, while atoms have always been natural to Indian thought, they have been considered alien in Western thought, this may suggest atoms were not original to the Western psyche(In the previous article it was suggested Democritus probably learned about atoms from the Indians)

Laws of substances/matter


Meaning: A substance can be modified into another substance, such as a piece of clay can be modified into a pot shape or a thread can be woven into clothes but this will not change the properties of the substance. Similarly water can be modified into ice, liquid and gas but it will not change its properties (just its state). On the other hand only certain reactions will change the properties of a substance. In other words this is explaining the difference between physical state changes and atomic and chemical changes(elaborated on later in this article)


Meaning: This is a statement of the law of conservation or the third law of thermodynamics, a substance can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to the other. The physical substances (earth, water, fire, air) are made out eternal and distinct atoms. The atomic combinations will originate new substances owing to the atoms joining with one another, but the atoms themselves cannot be destroyed. The total number of atoms in the universe will always remain constant.


Meaning: A substance can be made out of a combination of other substances e.g. Water is a molecule made out of two gasses hydrogen and oxygen.


A substance is a sum total of many forces/actions of atoms within that it that hold it together, when the forces are displaced, then the substance fissions releasing energy.
Physical substances:qualities

Earth: smell, taste, colour, touch and sound
Water: taste, color, touch and sound
Light/Fire: colour, touch and sound
Wind/Air: touch and sound
Ether/Space: sound

In addition to these sensible qualities, atomic compounds also have additional qualities like mass, size, dimension, fluidity (and its opposite hardness), viscosity, charge(roughness and smoothness) etc

In cases where the substance lacks colour i.e. it is invisible, the Vaiseshika have to use the inference of commonly observed to posit its existence, which is the equivalent of what we call theoretical physics in modern physics – this is when we infer the existence of imperceptible entities like atoms, quantum fields or extra spatial dimensions from things which we can observe, yet cannot observe the inferred entities themselves. Thus the following have to be inferred to exist in Vaiseshika: wind, ether, space, time and of course atoms. Thus proofs are given for their existence, but in special circumstances we can render something imperceptible perceptible (like electrons can be rendered perceptible in cloud chambers) The standard example given in Vaiseshika is how sound can be made audible in air.

It may seem odd to say earth etc. are elements, but if you think of anything material you can classify it in either of these 5 categories because they correspond to sensory channels e.g., let’s take the phenomena magnetism, it has no smell, hence it is not Earth; it has no taste, hence it is not water; it has no colour, hence it is not light; It has touch, hence it is wind.

Material substances are of two types: Eternal and non-eternal.

Eternal are the 4 types of atoms whose aggregates produce infinite variety of substances, and ether

Earth atoms, which is responsible for the quality of smell
Water atoms, which is responsible for the quality of taste
Light/fire atoms, which is responsible for the quality of colour
Wind/Air atoms, which is responsible for the quality of touch
Ether, the only physical element which is non-atomic

The Vaiseshika definition of what an atom is matches our quarks:[6]

Atoms are infinitesimal, have no magnitude and point-like
They are spherical point sources(parimandala)
They possess vibratory and rotary motion/spin(parispanda)
They are combine with other atoms based on natural laws based on mutual compatibility
There are four distinct type of atoms not reducible to one another
Each distinct atom is responsible for a sensible property

Similarly quarks are massless, have no magnitude and are point like, they have spin, they combine to produce larger particles and they are of distinct types. They are responsible for the various sensible properties we see.

Proof for the existence of atoms:


1. Atoms must exist
2. Because otherwise matter would be infinitely divisible
3. If matter was infinitely divisible, then a mountain and a seed would be infinitely divisible, thus it would be possible to start with a seed and end up with a mountain
4. One begins with a seed and ends up with a mountain which is absurd.
5. Therefore matter must be made of atoms

Proof for imperceptibility and no magnitude of atoms:


1. Atoms must be without magnitude and infinitesimal in size
2. Because all compounds of atoms have magnitude
3. When a compound is broken down into its parts, it produces parts of lesser magnitude, and when they are broken down it produces parts of even lesser magnitude, and if we keep breaking it down eventually it must be terminated at a point where there is no magnitude.
4. Magnitude therefore originates not from the size of atoms which must be infinitesimal, but from the number of atoms, just as a forest originates from a collection of trees
5.Therefore atoms are without magnitude and infinitesimal in size.[7]


Non eternal are all material substances produced out of the combinations of these atoms and because they are compounds they are non-eternal, because the combinations can be broken into its elemental atoms. The qualities of a particular compound is due to the presence of a specific atom .e.g. If a substance has touch, that is because it has wind atoms. If it has mass, that is because of earth atoms.

Earth and water atoms/Atomic and chemical physics

Earth and water substance can be either organic or inorganic.

The Nyaya-Vaiseshika philosphers conceptualized many theories on atomic combinations distinguishing between atomic reactions and chemical reactions. In both types of reactions heat is seen as the cause that makes or breaks the bonds. Two atoms combine to make a binary atoms(dvayunakas) Binary atoms combine to make a ternary atom(triyunaka) These pairs and triplets then combine in various permutations and combinations to form innumerable substances(similar to contemporary theories on how quarks combine) Atoms combine based on compatible properties and natural laws. [6] Jain philosophers theorize that it is due to opposing touch qualities like roughness and hardness, similar to the modern notion of charge, that the atoms combine, anticipating modern electrocolvant bonding.[6][8]

The atomic aggregate will have the properties of the parent atoms that form it present with it, but the aggregate itself will have new emergent properties. This takes place through either atomic reactions or chemical reactions under the influence of heat(pakajotpati).[9]

Atomic reactions(Pilupaka, literally heating of atoms): Atomic reactions take place when heat breaks down an atomic aggregate into its atomic parts, which then recombine in other combinations to form new aggregates. In this type of reaction the original aggregate is decomposed and formed into a new aggregate. This reaction is unobservable.

Chemical reactions(Piturapaka, literally heating of molecules): Chemical reactions take place when heat either externally (exothermic) or internally (endothermic) causes the properties of a compound of atoms (i.e, molecules) to change and originates new groupings, without decomposing into atoms itself. This is observed when the pot is heated up and changes colour, the pot does not decompose into atoms, but merely changes its chemical properties due to chemical reactions.

Prashastapada explains atomic reactions take place in lower order aggregates and chemical reactions take place in higher order aggregates.[10]

The chemical reactions that happen on Earth such as grass changing colour, corrosion on iron, photosynthesis is explained due to solar heat by Uddayana(800-900AD). The light particles penetrate the interatomic spaces and cause chemical changes to happen. Chemical reactions that take place in the body such as metabolism formation of tissues or fertilization of the ovum during sexual intercourse are explained as due to the heat of the body.[10][11] The Vaiseshika also noted that different degrees of heat will produce different levels of chemical changes. Thus its chemical theories were not purely speculative, but based on observation.


Proof for Atomic and chemical reactions:

1. Atoms combine and break apart due to forces and especially the application of heat and light
2. Because no conjunction or disjunction is possible without an action
3. Any action of joining or disjoining of something requires action to bring the two entities together, such as water does not boil unless water is combined with heat or a shard of clay does not change colour unless combined with heat, as is observed in reactions where the clay is heated and it changes colour
4. Here too the conjunction of heat with water or clay with heat causes activity in the atoms and changes its configurations
5. Therefore, atoms only combine or break apart due to forces and especially the application of heat and light



Now, if you are wondering whether the atomic and chemical theories of the Vaiseshika were actually applied practically, the answer to this is affirmative, in Indian chemistry an equally advanced level of sophistication was reached (this will be covered in section 6, but if you cannot wait this long, please read History of Hindu chemistry, available on archive.com) We have already seen applications of these theories in Indian medicine(section 3) in Nanomedicine where minerals are reduced into nanoparticles and the testing and formulation of drugs(I hope in light of my new revelations the nanomedicine sounds more credible). The applications to metallurgy are well known in the advanced chemistry seen in corrosion proof pure iron seen in the famous Iron pillar of Delhi(this technology is still not reproducible) the production of wootz steel(new evidence shows it is reinforced with carbon nanotubes) and zinc production. There can be no doubt the ancient Indians had a very advanced knowledge of chemistry, and from the Vaiseshika we learn they understood the theory of chemistry as well.

Water atoms

Water atoms are atoms that possess natural fluidity and are responsible for flavour and taste, as such water atoms could refer to not just water, but any kind of natural fluidity such as kinetic energy to the movement of electrons. Fluidity or kinetic energy was understood to be present in both earth and water, except fluidity was the natural property of water, whereas earth had accidental fluidity, i.e., it had to be originated within it by heating solids, causing the atoms within it to break out of their solid lattices.[10]

The concepts of boiling point, melting point and physical state changes were known to the Vaiseshika. Here is the proof:


A commentary is given by one of the Nyaya-Vaiseshika philosophers in the VS:


Proof of melting points of different substances:


Meaning: Some of the physical elements can become liquefied by originating fluidity within them, in order the lowest melting point is water, ice, snow, hails, higher melting point is wax, butter, lac and higher still is tin, lead, iron, silver and gold.

Proof for physical state changes and phases of matter:

1. Ice, water and gas are the same substance with different level of kinetic energy
2. Because they transform into one another when combined with heat energy
3. What transforms is just the same substance in a different form, just as molten gold of higher fluidity solidifies into solid gold of less fluidity .
4. Here too we see ice, water and steam transform into one another
5. Therefore ice, water and gas are just all just water with different levels of fluidity owing to different levels of heat energy

Light atoms/Optics

Light was understood to me made out of a stream of very minute particles travelling in straight lines at a very high but specific velocity. Heat, light and all different colours were to be understood to be different varieties of the same light particles.(The equivalence of light and heat was not understood until Joules in modern times) [6][10]

There were two main theories for how we see, however in principle both theories are correct. The first theory which was accepted by both Nyaya-Vaieshika and Mimassa is that we see because invisible particles project outwards from the senses of our eyes and contact the object(i.e. the senses have to project outwards) The Mimassas further held that light radiated outwards in a stream of particles(i.e. radiation) The second theory proposed by Sushruta(various dates, 600BCE is most common) is that light rays impinge upon our retina, and are transmitted via the optic nerve to the brain. Cakarpani(1000CE) commenting on Susrutha confirms this, adding that light propagates as a wave like sound, except with much more faster velocity.

Various optical phenomena were understood[12]

Transparency: Transparency is when the light particles go right through an object, and opacity is when the object absorbs the light particles

Reflection: Reflection happens when the light particles strike an object and deflect off from it. It was also stated that the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection.

Refraction: Refraction occurs when the light particles enter a refractive medium such as water and slow down and deflect from it

Considering the sophistication of the knowledge of optics of the Vaiseshika and Indians in general, the allusion we saw earlier to microscopes or some viewing glass lens in the Charaka Samhita and the suggestion of its use in Parasara’s botanical work describing a plant cell by some biologists and botanists may sound more plausible. It is very likely that they knew all about optical properties of different kind of materials.
It is highly likely that Arabs scientists such as Ibn al-Haytham(book of opics) who were the first to build a camera obscure and investigate various optical phenomena were very conversant with the Vaiseshika.

Speed of light?

There is also a very curious reference to the “speed of the sun” by a Vedic scholar Sayana, commenting on a passage in the Rig Veda. He states that the sun travels at the speed of 2200 yojanas in half a nimesha. Yojana and nimesha are standard Indian metric units described in the Arthshastra and other Indian texts, which when converted it translates to 19818 miles/ 8/75 sec = 186,433.22 mps, 99.9% accurate to the current value of the speed of light. This is too much of a coincidence, to be considered a coincidence. Kak argues that this is an indication of a lost tradition of astronomical knowledge, somehow somebody before Sayana had calculated this figure but the methods they used were obviously not known to Sayana, nor might he been aware that this is the speed of light and not literally the speed of the sun.[13]

It is worth pointing out that early estimates of the speed of light were even less accurate than Sayana estimate. When converted to km/s Sayana’s figure is: 300,035.8

1675 Rømer and Huygens, moons of Jupiter
220,000
1729 James Bradley, aberration of light
301,000
1849 Hippolyte Fizeau, toothed wheel
315,000
1862 Léon Foucault, rotating mirror
298,000±500
1907 Rosa and Dorsey, EM constants 299,710±30
1926 Albert Michelson, rotating mirror
299,796±4
1950 Essen and Gordon-Smith, cavity resonator 299,792.5±3.0
1958 K.D. Froome, radio interferometry 299,792.50±0.10
1972 Evenson et al., laser interferometry 299,792.4562±0.0011
1983 17th CGPM, definition of the metre 299,792.458 (exact)

(Source: Wiki, speed of light)


Wind atoms

Wind atoms are the cause of all movements, and various winds are recognized from actual literal winds (the air heated by solar winds) to magnetic winds, electrical winds, energy winds, gravitational winds to winds that bring together atoms. In other words what we call in modern physics forces (gravity, electromagnetic, nuclear) Astonishingly, the Vaiseshika understood all forces to be the varieties of the same unified natural order(adristam), anticipating contemporary Grande Unified theory.

Proofs for various forces:

The proofs for each force follows the same arguments using an general observation inference to posit the existence of an unseen force:


Meaning: Adristam literally means unseen force. In Vaiseshika it refers to natural laws of which magnetism, gravitational attraction, circulation of water in trees, electrostatic attraction, and movements of atoms are all instances.

Magnetism:

1. The magnet moves the needle due to an unseen force between them
2. Because the needle moves when the magnet is brought near it
3. Where there is movement, one must infer a force, such as the grass does not move unless a wind blows
4. Here there is also movement
5. Therefore there must be an unseen force between the magnet and needle

That magnetism was understood by the Vaiseshika can be seen clearly articulated in Sankar Mishra’s(800-900AD) Upaskara where he also mentions how the needle moves when the magnet is near and also talks about creating new magnets by rubbing iron against one of the poles of a magnet. The use of magnetism in practical applications appears to have been applied in seafaring and navigation from early times. In Bhoja’s(1100CE) Yuktikalpataru he warns of using iron on the base of the ship, because it would otherwise be attracted by magnetic rocks at sea.[14] There is an allusion to a magnetic compass called Matsya yantra where a metallic fish was suspended in oil to point north, allowing navigation. As the history of navigation in ancient India goes back beyond 1000BCE the magnetic compass is most likely to a be very ancient, allusions can be find to it throughout Indian texts[15]

Sankara Misra also noted electrostatic attraction: [16]

1. The amber attracts the grass or straw due to an unseen force between them
2. Because the amber when rubbed gains the power to attract the silk
3. As no movement is possible without a force
4. And here there is movement of attraction
5. Therefore the amber attracts the silk due to an unseen force

Gravity:


Meaning: When there is no countering force, an object will fall due to gravity. The fruit on the branch of a tree is held up by the branch, when the branch breaks, the fruit falls due to gravity. A bird is held up by the movement of its wings, in its absence the bird falls due to gravity

Proof:

1. The object falls due to gravity
2. Because an object remains at rest or continues moving unless it is acted upon by a force
3. Such as an axe cannot itself cut the wood unless a force is applied
4. Here the object is seen to fall when the support is removed
5. Therefore the object falls due to gravity

That Kananda understood that the cause of falling is gravity, which is the inherent property of mass, one can easily deduce from this that the Earth and the planets have their own gravitational field. Although we do not find any explicit statements of this until Aryabhatta(500CE) and Brahmagupta(600CE)

Al-Biruni cites Brahmagupta defending Aryabhatta’s theory that the Earth spins on its own axis.[17]


It is very likely given that Kananda had already mentioned gravity in the VS that this Kananda also knew about the heliocentric theory of gravitation. It has already been pointed out earlier the heliocentric theory of gravitation is hinted at in the Vedas, describing the sun as the center of spheres stringing them along in their orbits by its wind(Aryabhatta also uses the term “wind” to describe gravity)

Ether/Acoustics

The existence of the ether is inferred by the fact of sound, as a medium that must carry the vibrations and have vibration as its nature. The Vaiseshika understood that air was not the medium of sound, but merely the cause for what makes sound audible, the sound was literally being produced by the sound waves travelling through the air molecules(thus they understood that sound cannot travel in a vacuum of air). The sound itself belonged to the ether whose nature was sound. Its existence is posited because while Earth is the carrier of smell, water of taste, light of colour and wind of touch, there must be a 5th material substance posited to account for sound. Ether is eternal, infinite and homogeneous, because sound can be heard anywhere. The ether of the Vaiseshika is identical to the quantum-field of contemporary physics, which also is the medium through which waves propagate.(Ether is very important in Samkhya darsana)

Unlike the Mimassa, the linguistic school which maintained that sound(shabda) was eternal and emanated from the substratum of reality(tied in with the classical Indian belief that the pranava or Aum is sounding at the fundamental level of reality ) The Vaiseshika refuted this by saying all sounds are produced, therefore they cannot be eternal. The argument is as follows

1. Sound is non-eternal
2. Because it is produced
3. Anything that is produced has a beginning in time, like a pot is produced by the potter
4. Here too sound was produced and had a beginning
5. Therefore, sound is non-eternal


Meaning: Sound can either be produced by two things contacting one another, like the drum stick and the drum, or a breaking something apart like breaking a twig or it can generated from other sounds, such as sound waves propagating and bouncing of one another. Prashastapada expands on this sutra and puts forward the wave theory of sound, that sound radiates out in concentric waves from its source before reaching the ear.[17] The proof is as follows:

1. The sound most travel out in a series of concentric waves from its source before it reaches the ear
2. Because waves move in wavicular motions, the first must generate the second wave, and second wave the third and so on
3. A wave travels in concentric circles from its source, as can be seen in the example of the pebble thrown in the pond
4. Here too the sound is a wave emitting from a source
5. Therefore the sound must travel out in a series of concentric waves from its source before it reaches the ear

The physics of sounds, and concepts like frequency, pitch, amplitude, tones, harmonics, nodal change all were understood.[18]

Immaterial substances

Space
Time

The substance of space is inferred through the qualities of position and direction, thus space is the framework within which we can locate the position of particles. The substance of time is known though the qualities of past, present and future and slow and fast. However, according to the Vaiseshika space and time are both one and continuous, their division are mere abstractions:


The Vaiseshika understood that space and time are eternal, infinite and homogeneous and that all notions of individuated space such as pot-space, inner and outer space and individuated notions of time as past, present and future are relative abstractions. Later Nyaya-Vaiseshika philosophers, much like Einstein argued that space and time are one continuum, just different phase of it, anticipating modern 4D geometry. There is an understanding pervading ancient Indian thought that time flows at different speeds in different dimensions of space, such themes are found in the Upanishads, Puranas and the Yoga Vasistha.[6]

Vacaspati Misra(800AD) anticipates Descartes coordinate geometry by 8 centuries to conceptualize space as being represented in 3D and any particle in space can be located by measuring its distance relative to any other point represented along 3 imaginary axis of space.[19]

Actions/motions

Actions/motions are the causes for why atoms combine the cause for why an object remains at rest or an object continuing in a straight line changes direction. In other words what we call forces in Newtonian mechanics. The Vaiseshika understood that forces were vectors and acted on objects. A very comprehensive definition of what motion/force is, is given by Prashatapada:[20]]


Types of motion

Throwing upwards and rising motion
Throwing downwards and falling motion
Attraction and contraction motion
Repulsion and expansion motion
Straight motion
Circular motion
Angular motion
Elastic motion/elasticity
Vibrational motion/harmonics

Laws of motion in the VS:


Meaning: Forces are the cause for any change in movement, breaking or joining of substances and breaking and joining of atoms. If any movement is perceived, it can be inferred there is force acting on the object. This is Newton's first law.


Meaning: Forces do not generate other forces , upwards force does not generate gravity, which does not generate horizontal force, which does not circular force. Each is a separate vector force and acts singularly on a body. A body can have a number of forces acting on it(vectors)


Throwing upwards has two vector forces, there is the upwards force of throwing the object up and the downwards force of gravity


Meaning: Newton’s second law of motion, a particular motion of a particular mass results a particular force i.e., the particular acceleration of an objection is directly proportional to the force applied, mathematically F=MA.[21]

The Vaiseshika’s understood that the movement of an object is not continuous and can be represented as a series of successive moments (which is the forerunner to infinitesimal calculus) and that the impulse generated in the object is reproduced at each successive moment carrying on in a straight line, until it is destroyed by another force. Similarly, it was understood that the acceleration of the object was directly proportional to the force applied.


Meaning: The kinetic energy from the hand is transferred into the pestle, when the pestle impacts the ground, it produces an equal and opposite reaction force causing the hand to move up. Thus we find implicitly Newton’s third law of motion here for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Vector forces explaining the parabolic path of a projectile, such as an arrow


Meaning: The arrow continues in straight line because of the momentum energy provided by the bow, but at each successive moment the force of gravity acts against it, causing the arrow to lose energy gradually and fall.

Proof:

1. The arrow follows a parabolic path because of the horizontal force provided by the bow which causes it to sail forward and its velocity is directly proportional to the momentum given by the bow. The arrow’s momentum energy is then negated at each successive moment by gravity causing it to fall, it falls when it loses all momentum energy.
2. Because an object will continue at the same velocity in a straight line, unless it is acted upon by a force
3. Such as the river will flow forward and only stop if there is a dam or if another force redirects it
4. Here the arrow is seen to move forward and fall gradually in increments
5. Therefore, there must be two forces acting on the object, the force pushing the arrow forward and the force of gravity due to which it falls.

There can be no doubt that the physics of mechanics, the concepts of momentum, acceleration, velocity, the laws of motion, inertia, vectors instantaneous motion, motions of projection, work done were all understood by the Vaiseshika. However, it is not until the middle ages the theories of mechanics of the Vaiseshika were turned into mathematical models, giving the first ever equations of motion

Aryabhatta’s treatise, Aryabhateeyam [2-31] contains many theorems of motion one of which goes thus:[22]


Bhakshacharya(1200AD) in his Siddanta Shiromani gives the equation v = s/t to calculate the motion of a planet with uniform velocity, however when the velocity is variable such as the motion of a planet then the instantaneous velocity can be given through the differential equation of ds/dt.[20]

Conclusion

We can see that the Nyaya-Vaiseshikla school had anticipated many modern scientific discoveries. Here is a comparison showing the dates of equivalent theories and when they arose in Western natural philosophy and physics

1. Atomic theories of combinations to form binary etc molecules, chemical bonding theories under heat, elementary particles having no dimension and size as being the cause of sensible properties, the distinction between chemical and atomic reactions etc

Although Democritus is the first to propose the idea of atoms in Western history, his ideas were primitive and not accepted, opting for Aristotle theories instead. Atomic theory was revived again by Dalton(who may have been familiar with Indian atomic theories) who proposed combinations of atoms in binary and ternary pairs(much like the Vaiseshika) and so on. However, he wrongly called the chemical elements atoms and said they were hard like billiard balls. This was proven wrong by Rutherford when he split Dalton's so-called atom, and later finer particles were discovered electrons, protons and neutrons, which we know understood to be made out of different combinations of quarks.

Approximately Indian atomic theories were 2500 years ahead.

2. The laws of thermodynamics, the theory of kinetic energy and the physical states of matter(solid, liquids and gasses) being a function of kinetic energy of atoms and the recognition heat was another form of light or energy.

Early thermodynamics began in the 18th century, but the theories about heat were wrong, it was considered a weightless fluid called caloric(where we get the word calorie from) but it was not until Thompson in 1798 that the theory that heat is another form of energy and is made of moving particles was proposed, but this was not proven until Joules. The theory of kinetic energy and law of conservation energy, and explanation that the physical states changes are due to it was not formulated till the end of the 19th century.

Approximately Indian thermodynamic theories were 2400 years in advance.

3. Kinematics, The laws of motion, theory of gravitation and force vectors etc

Aristotelian mechanics which was based on suppositions that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects and that things take their natural positions due to “will” prevailed in the West until Galileo challenged it and proved it wrong with the tower thought experiment. Galileo stressed on mechanical and mathematical explanations and empirical validation of motion. Later, Descartes developed this further and created coordinate geometry to model the behaviour of particles, but he explained movements in terms of invisible corpuscles that push things. He was later proven wrong by Newton who went onto formulate the laws of motion and theory of gravity.

Approximately the Indian mechanical theories were 2300 years in advance if we consider just the description of laws of motion and vectors, and 1700 years in advance if we consider the first differential equations for calculation motion, distance, speed and time or 600-700 years in advance if we consider the first infinitesimal calculus to calculate instantaneous motion.

4. Wave theory of sound and light, harmonics

Wave theory of sound and light was proposed by Huygens in 1690 where he proposed the sound and light propagate like waves in concentric circles(wave fronts)
Approximately India’s theories about sound were 1000 years head(or 1500 years if Prashapada’s date is taken as 200AD))

5. Magnetism and optics

The theory of magnetism as a force and its application in navigation

The use of magnetism and the compass was developed outside of West by the Chinese, the Chinese were using magnetic needle like compass as early as 200BCE, but it was used for divination purposes. The earliest use of the compass for navigation at sea was not until 1200CE, the compass was then transmitted into Europe in 1300AD. There were no statements recognizing magnetism as an unseen force in the Chinese literature or any other literature.

Approximately, the Indian theory of magnetism and its application in navigation was 700 years in advance. The Mariners compass was being used on Indian ships since as early as 500AD, but it was most likely being used even before then considering India had a massive shipbuilding industry and engaged in constant deep sea voyages.

Optics is another science which was developed outside of Europe, by the Arab scientists. The Arab book of optics was the standard textbook in Europe until Newton. It is highly likely that the book of optics was influenced by the Indians.

6. Electrostatic attraction

Although the phenomena of electrostatic attraction was noted by Thales (600BCE) he explained it wrong as being caused by friction and did not understand electric charge was a force. The understanding that electricity was a force was not discovered until Coulomb, who formulated Coulombs laws in 1798 using the inverse square law to study electrostatic attraction. However, it was not until Oersted in 1820 that the relationship between electricity and magnetism was discovered.

Approximately Indians theories about electrostatic attraction were 900-1000 years in advance, the first scientist to recognise electrostatic attraction is a force like magnetism was Shankra Misra(800-900AD)

7. Space-time geometry and the understanding of time flowing at different speeds in different frames of references

Until Descartes there was no space-time geometry, he created the 3D solid coordinate geometry based on the x, y and z axis. This enabled Newton to then model the position of a particle and calculate its speed, distance, time etc. But Newton wrongly believed that space and time were absolute for all the particles. Einstein proved him wrong with his theory of relativity showing that space is relative in all frames of references

Approximately the Indian theories of space-time were 1000+ years in advance of Einstein in the understanding that time flows at different rates or 800-900 years in advance of both Descartes 3D and Einstein’s 4D geometry of space and time, recognizing the space-time continuum long before Einstein. (I will show in 5.3 they also knew about the equivalence of energy and matter)

On average Indian physics was approx 1500 years ahead of Western physics. By 500AD they had reached a remarkable level of sophistication; they had developed complex theories of elementary particles and atomic bonding and created advanced chemical techniques and arts, they had given equations to calculate velocity, distance and time and developed mechanical theories equivalent to Newton describing the laws of motion and propounded a heliocentric theory of gravitation. Still only a few centuries later they went onto develop coordinate geometry and infinitesimal calculus, and express the instantaneous velocity of planets and make fundamental observations of electrostatic attraction, which would have been the forerunner to electricity.

We can see this tradition of physical science went as far as back as 600BCE to the Upanishadic age, and it continued unabated till the medieval age. Unfortunately, this tradition of science was brought to an abrupt end by 1200AD when India was invaded by the Arabs, which burnt down all its universities, libraries and centers of learning. Sadly, so much of the books of ancient Indian physics have most probably been lost, due to all the libraries that would contain them being burned down by the invading Arabs. There may have been so much more in terms of science in these books, what we currently know may just be a tip of the iceberg (consider Sayana’s mysterious figure of the speed of light for example, or the mysterious reference to microscopes in the Charaka Samhita) Also, unfortunate is how the scientific progress of India was brought to a crawl by the Arabs, undoubtedly as a result of the destruction of its centers of learning. Had the Arabs not invaded, India could very well have reached the electrical age centuries before the West.

Now, what is curious is did the scientific tradition independently develop in the West, or was it helped by the Indians? Why did scientific thinking start in Europe roughly around the same time when Indian knowledge was being transmitted into Europe in the 12th century via the Arabs? Indian textbooks on science were translated into Latin and were standard textbooks in Europe as early as the 12-13 century.(This included major Indian medical encyclopedias Sushruta and Charaka Samhita, major Indian astronomical and mathematical texts Aryabhattiya, Brahmagupta) As these books were collected and stored in early medieval European universities, The forefathers of the scientific revolution in Europe Copernicus, Kepler, Bacon, Tycho Brahe would have read them.

The Greek origins of European science?

The traditional narrative of the birth of the scientific revolution traces back the thread all the way back to the Greeks. You will find this narrative in virtually every book on the history of science and philosophy. It usually goes like this:

Thales(600BCE) was the first philosopher or scientist; he rejected all superstitious and supernatural explanations and wanted to give a rational explanation for the world. The revolution of thought he brought about spurred on the Presocratic movement of philosophers who wanted to know the secrets of nature, and what it was made of. Democritus(500BCE) was the first scientist and explained the world is made out of atoms. Then came Plato, who although had his head in his clouds, gave his pupil Aristotle who formulated the principles of logic empiricism and used observation to study the world around him initiating the study of physics, biology, zoology, mineralogy, after him followed a few more Greek luminaries, his pupil Theophrastus, the father of botany, the father of medicine Hippocrates(460-370BCE) the father of mathematics Euclid(300BCE) and the father of surgery Galen(129-200CE)

And then there was a dark age with the rise of the Roman Empire, philosophy was derided as a pagan/barbarian activity and science was not given further support.
Fortunately, the Arabs who were patrons of science preserved the scientific works of the Greeks and had built upon them, transmitted them back to Europe in the 12th century and the Europeans continued from where the Greeks left of

There is a saying, “If you repeat a lie long enough, eventually it will be accepted as truth” This narrative is a fantasy concocted by European nationalist ideologues, and only started to be taught in the 16-17th century when Europe became powerful. Do you honestly think for 1000 years in between the Greeks and the Renaissance nobody made any further advances in science over the Greeks? In fact the truth it is because of the Greeks that Europe remained in a dark age, and it did not come out of the dark age till it threw away its Greek ways. All of the Greek stuff was thrown away during the Renaissance. Aristotle deductive method was thrown in favour of an inductive scientific method. His mechanics was overthrown by Galileo. Greco-Roman numerals and Euclid's maths was thrown away in favour of Indian decimal system, algebra and calculus. Ptolemey's model was thrown away in favour of heliocentric elliptical model(which was really Aryabhatta's model)

If we compare Greek science with Indian science in the same time period we begin to see how outrageous is this lie the Greeks started science:

Thales:

Thales is called the first scientist because he rejected superstitious explanations and tried to give a rational explanation for things, right? Lets look at his “rational explanations”

1.Everything is made out of water
2.All things contain gods
3.Magnets contain souls in them, hence why there is motion

Compare:

Kanada:

1. There are 9 irreducible substances: earth, fire, air, water, ether, space, time, mind and consciousness because of their distinct properties(only watery substances are reducible to water, but not reducible to fire)
2. All matter is governed by natural laws
3. The movement caused by the magnet is due an unseen natural force

Democritus

Democritus is also called the first scientist because he proposed the first scientific theory of atoms using scientific reasoning? Let us look at his scientific theory

1. Atoms exist, because you cannot go on cutting something forever
2. Atoms come in different sizes and shapes
3. Atoms are alive and have eyes
4. Atoms combine because they have hooks, some have balls and sockets, and some are sharp and pointy
5. Atoms are moving about in the void

Compare

Kanada:

1. Atoms exist, because everything has different orders of magnitudes and thus they cannot all be infinitely divisible
2.Atoms are spherical points of no magnitude, shape and size, because magnitude is only present in compounds. Size, shape, mass, weight are only properties of compounds.
3.Atoms combine due to natural laws with one another, forming binary and ternary aggregates and so on, and heat is required to form bonds
4. Atomic compounds can undergo physical, chemical and atomic changes
5. The total number of atoms is constant
6. Atoms are measured in relation by their position in space

Aristotle:

Aristotle is known for his theories of motion based on scientific logic and observation. Let us see what conclusions he came to using his “scientific logic”

1.An object remains at absolute rest until it is pushed
2.Heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects
3.The speed of an object is because of the density of the medium it travels in, it travels with faster speed in air, and slower speed in water, and in a vacuum it would travel at infinite speed(but nature abhors a vacuum, so a vacuum cannot exist)
4.The arrow in flight sails forward because it creates a vacuum behind it due to displacing the air, and because nature abhors a vacuum, it quickly fills the air behind it pushing it further, the arrow falls when it hits an obstacle.
5. Matter has a will to take certain positions(earth to fall, fire to rise etc)

Compare

Kanada:

1. No movement, or change of direction, coming together or displacement is possible without a force
2. An object falls due to gravity in absence of any countering force or support. The motion of an object thrown upwards is the resultant of the upwards force and gravity.
3. The acceleration of the object is directly proportional to the effort at which it is projected, it then continues at a steady momentum in a series of successive motions in a straight line in the direction of the force, unless it is acted on by another force
4. The arrow sails forward due to the momentum imparted to it by the bow, but begins to fall gradually at every successive moment due to gravity acting on it causing it to lose momentum, and falls when it loses all of its momentum energy

It does not need to be pointed out how vastly superior Kanada’s physics is to Thales, Democritus and Aristotle(and according to the SC he’s as old as Thales), but what surprises me is the conspicuous absence of his name in our text books? How can anyone in good faith praise Thales, Aristotle and Democritus as the pioneers of science, if they know about Kanada?


Limitations of Nyaya-Vaiseshika paradigm

The Nyaya-Vaiseshika paradigm is limited by the same limitations that limit classical physics

1. It is epistemologically dynamic, meaning as its knowledge grows gradually through empirical evidence as we cannot have knowledge of infinite variables at once, its knowledge is only valid insofar as the current empirical evidence. Its theories have to be overturned in light of new empirical evidence.
2. It cannot explain how and why the atoms combine in the first place and what maintains the atomic ratios of all atoms in the universe, like some modern natural philosophers grappling with the anthropic principle, later Vaiseshika philosophers have to introduce God as the cause which creates more questions than it answers.
3. It does not explain how atoms which lack dimension should aggregate to form dimension, its answer is that it is due to the number of atoms that dimension originates like many strands of hair give mass to hair, but this still does not explain how something which is dimensionless can combine with something else which is dimensionless(where do they combine?) (This is a Vedanta argument)
4. It does not explain how the universe being made of 9 irreducible substances could interact with one another, all being different substances, much like Leibniz's Monads or Descartes mind and matter.

The answer to Nyaya-Vaiseshika, just like the answer to classical physics is quantum physics. In the next sub-section we will look at how Samkhya-Yoga school realized the limitation of the Nyaya-Vaiseshika metaphysics and gave their very own proofs for the existence of a fundamental quantum reality which underlies the particularities of the empirical world.


References

1.http://www.iisc.ernet.in/insa/ch9.pdf
2.Analytic Philosophy in Early Modern India (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
3.https://archive.org/details/thevaiasesikasut00kanauoft
4.http://eview.anu.edu.au/cross-sections/vol7/pdf/ch01.pdf
5.Jainism: The World of Conquerors - Natubhai Shah - Google Books
6.http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0310001v1.pdf
7.Naturalism in Classical Indian Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
8.Atom Theory in Ancient India | Kim Rendfeld
9. Theories of Atomic combinations, Indian National Science Academy
10.Historof Indian philosophy, physical theories of Vaiseshika
11.http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701077.pdf
12.Physics - Light
13.http://www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/sayana.pdf
14.Magnetism
15.Early History : About Indian Navy : Indian Navy
16.Science in India- Electricity
17.Brahmagupta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
18.Sound
19.Space
20.Physics - Motion
21.Modern Physics in Ancient India
22.Ancient Indian Scientists and their Contributions

Here is a reference which presents a short summary of everything I have described in section 5 so far: http://www.iiit.ac.in/~bipin/files/Dawkins/Ethics/Scientific method.pdf

There is a quote cited within it of what the rest of the world at the time thought of Indian science by an Arab scholar, and again there is none of this denial we see in the West today of its scientific legacy:


Hence, we can say confidently in light of what I have shown in section 5 so far, Indians were the first to develop the positive sciences. They were the first to study the philosophy of science and formulate a scientific method. All positive sciences that we know today were started by the Indians, including physics and chemistry, medicine, botany, biology and optics. When these sciences were transmitted to the Arabs, the Arabs developed on some of them further, and then transmitted it to Europe. Then Europe developed them further to the level they are at today. I do not mean to deny then the genius of Europe who has advanced the physical sciences much beyond the Indians, but it does irk me that European historians have ignobly forgotten the contributions of the Indians to our modern science, and have wrongly tried to give the credit to the Greeks for Indian contributions.

It becomes obvious to anybody who studies the history of the ancient and medieval world the Indians were considered the greatest nation on Earth(Herodotus said the same thing) they were the pioneers of science, technology, philosophy and literature in that age. They were the biggest, most populous and most powerful. Again, let us summarize the list of firsts

1. The first civil administration, city planning, sewage disposal and middle class society
2. The first human rights, civil rights, women rights, animals rights
3. The first mass-education system, and the first universities, colleges and schools, by the time of Nalanda there were dozens of universitieis and tens of thousands of schools
4. The first scientific medical system, including scientific classification of diseases and drugs, clinical drug trials, medical ethics
5. The first hospitals and health clinics, and that too offering free medical health care administered by the state
6. The first and oldest tradition of philosophy, predating any other philosophical tradition by up to 1000 years. Starting the first studies in metaphysics, epistemology and ethics and developing them to a modern level of sophistication. Shaping world philosophy through influence on the Greeks and the Chinese.
7. The first science and scientific method, initiating studies into all positive sciences and developing them to a near modern level of sophistication by 500AD, including atomic and chemical theories, kinematics, heliocentric theory of gravitation, equations of motion, calculus

Come on, I think the Indians deserve a lot more credit and respect than they are given. Indians too deserve to feel more proud of their civilization. Not, so one can bask in the splendour of the past, but, as Rajiv Malhotra argues, to develop a strong sense of civilizational identity, to take leadership of India and take it to the same height it was at in ancient times. To look into the past to understand the present and chart the course of the future.

Vajra said:

Wonderful work Joshua!!

Click to expand...

Thank you!

I am hoping for major education reforms in the Indian education system, which I suspect will happen if the BJP headed by Modi come into power. Unfortunately, the current education system is based on anti-national policies by what is essentially an anti-national government. Nowhere else in the world are you not taught the positives of your own history. In China for example, all Chinese people are taught about the very glorious history of science, philosophy and technology in China. In universities all around the world 30 volumes detailing everything China achieved based on Needham's research are found housed in the library of virtually every university. Unfortunately, the same is not true of India, most of the literature that exists on India is negative, discussing its caste system, child-marriage, sati customs, superstition and its history of being invaded constantly by Persians, Greeks, Arabs, Portuguese, British. This is what the poor Indians learn about their history in their own country in their own schools. No wonder they lack self-esteem about their own heritage.

This anti-national government, as I discussed in section 2 is just a leftover of the colonial past, the so-called brown sahibs, the sycophants of the British masters. I really hope that in 2014 their rule comes to a permanent end and Indians vote for a party that represents India's own ethos and all Indians.