• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Scenitific insights in ancient religious texts

9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Quagmire said:
No, as I said, the premise of the OP is this: "certain religious texts were making claims about the nature of reality centuries---even mellenia---before western science came to with the same conclusions."

You're still getting hung up on semantics. Doesn't matter. You don't have to call them scientific insights if you don't want to. Call them "smurph bubbles" if it makes you happy. They're still there. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

... if you don't scratch the surface too much. For instance, take the example you gave of Jain belief in "microorganisms"; the article you cited makes it sound like this was an expression of Jain belief about the four element system (Earth, Air, Water, Fire), which we now know is incorrect.
 
atanu

atanu

Member
Premium Member
9-10ths_Penguin said:
... if you don't scratch the surface too much. For instance, take the example you gave of Jain belief in "microorganisms"; the article you cited makes it sound like this was an expression of Jain belief about the four element system (Earth, Air, Water, Fire), which we now know is incorrect.
Click to expand...

:)This is like saying: Now we know that Newton was wrong.

Actually, the basic elements are/were considered five: Kha (mind-space), air, fire, water, earth. These five elements correspond to five sense organs. At a level this is immutable observation.

At another level there are 26 tattvas (categories) and at another 108 elements (japas are done 108 times). It all depends on the scope. The main point that has always been taught and that which is different from what science teaches however, is that these differentiated knowledges are only relatively true. Knowledge of relative truths will never confer freedom from misery. The fixed knowledge is knowledge of Self. And unlike in science, it is taught that only this knowledge confers fearlessness and peace.

It is interesting that Aitereya Brahmana 3.44 teaches of Sun being fixed and planets rotating around etc etc. But finally it is said that Mount Meru is is the fixed axis of the universe. Meru is the name of Spinal Cord.
 
atanu

atanu

Member
Premium Member
For friends, i will repeat what Veda itself says about its utilty.

Richo akshare parame vyoman yasmin deva adhi vishve nisheduh,
Yastanna veda kim richa karishyatiya it tad vidus ta ime samasate.
(Rk Veda, 1.164.39)

The Veda (knowledge) reside in the transcendental field or akshara, of the highest (parame) etheral Being (vyoman) in which reside all the adhi vishve deva's (or impulses of creative intelligence, the laws of Nature), responsible for the whole manifest universe. He whose awareness is not open (na veda) to this field, what can the verses accomplish for him? Those who know this level of reality are established in evenness (samasate or rest contented) , in That ( Tat or Bhuma, fullness-wholeness of life)."
--------------

As per Veda, knowledge resides in kha -- the infinite mind-space. Rejection of this realm of direct knowledge (because it is not sensual) automatically closes down this gate.
 
P

proffesb

Member
The problem with using older examples for this discussion is that we have limited knowledge of the scientific capabilities during and previous to the timeframe of those claims.

I noticed that part of the way through this thread the discussion went from "religious insights before science" to "religious insights before western science" people have been figuring out things using their brains long before western civilization came around so it makes a false argument to limit the science to that of the modern variety.
 
atanu

atanu

Member
Premium Member
atanu said:
Hi Outhouse
Neils Bohr used to say: I go into the Upanishads to ask questions.
Niels Bohr quote-I go into the Upanishads to ask questions. ...

Robert Oppenheimer felt: “Access to the Vedas is the greatest privilege this century may claim over all previous centuries.”
J. Robert Oppenheimer quotes
Click to expand...

atanu said:
For friends, i will repeat what Veda itself says about its utilty.

Richo akshare parame vyoman yasmin deva adhi vishve nisheduh,
Yastanna veda kim richa karishyatiya it tad vidus ta ime samasate.
(Rk Veda, 1.164.39)

The Veda (knowledge) reside in the transcendental field or akshara, of the highest (parame) etheral Being (vyoman) in which reside all the adhi vishve deva's (or impulses of creative intelligence, the laws of Nature), responsible for the whole manifest universe. He whose awareness is not open (na veda) to this field, what can the verses accomplish for him? Those who know this level of reality are established in evenness (samasate or rest contented) , in That ( Tat or Bhuma, fullness-wholeness of life)."
Click to expand...

I am in awe of scientists, especially physicists. And I am in awe of the sages that heard scriptures in mind-space. Veda, as also the Torah, is considered a formula -- a design, a template of creation. A mind contemplates the categories and the beings. The rk 1.164 that was cited above is called Asya Vamya Sukta, heard by sage dirghAtma. It is most perplexing and most complicated of the verses in Rig Veda.I could not resist sharing a bit more.

1.164.04 Who has seen the primeval (being) at the time of his being born; what is that endowed with substance which the unsubstantial sustains; from earth are the breath and blood; but where is the soul; who may repair to the sage to ask this?

Another translation is:

4 Who hath beheld him as he sprang to being, seen how the boneless One supports the bony?
Where is the blood of earth, the life, the spirit? Who may approach the man who knows, to ask it?

The sage does not merely say that the boneless supports the bony. He asserts that and further asks "Who knows how?" I am in awe, since, I have wondered how, opposed to sensual notion of solidness, the sage talks of the unsubstantial origin of the substantial universe? Has not science slowly revealed to us that matter is empty? Did Buddha not independently confirn this?

Asya Vamya raises many other fundamental questions that those who are interested may check here. It asserts that the universe is proliferation of infinite Word, that has relevant meanings thought by primeval mind. The Universe is vibration of Word and meanings are inherent.

Sahasrakshara Vak

I also believe that such fundamental knowledge is present in all major revealed scripture.
 
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Skwim said:
Science
"Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that of Aristotle, for whom scientific knowledge was a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained."
Source: Wikipedia
​
None of the examples in the OP showed signs of conforming to either of these meanings.
Click to expand...
Sure, when you look at it through blinders.

He wrote, "The sun strings these worlds - the earth, the planets, the atmosphere - to himself on a thread."
Click to expand...
We call it centripetal force.
 
Pegg

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
3,500 years ago, the Bible stated that the earth is hanging “upon nothing” (Job 26:7) And in the 8th century BCE the prophet Isaiah wrote that the earth was round or sperical at Isaiah 40:22. And the Mosaic Law contained sound laws regarding quarantining of the sick, treatment of dead bodies, and disposal of waste which were far ahead of their time.—Leviticus 13:1-5; Numbers 19:1-13; Deuteronomy 23:13, 14.

The bible is accurate, even when poetically describing the rise and fall of mountains. “With a watery deep just like a garment you covered [the earth]. The waters were standing above the very mountains. Mountains proceeded to ascend, valley plains proceeded to descend—to the place that you have founded for them.”—Psalm 104:6, 8. This is in harmony with modern day geology.

The water cycle is accurately described by a desert dweller: “All streams run into the sea, yet the sea never overflows; back to the place from which the streams ran they return to run again.”—Ecclesiastes 1:7


the bible doesnt claim to be a science book, but it is accurate when it mentions the natural world.
 
A

Acim

Revelation all the time
Skwim said:
Science:
"Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that of Aristotle, for whom scientific knowledge was a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained."
Click to expand...

Are either of these definitions scientific?
 
Copernicus

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
Much of this argument turns on the meaning of the phrase "scientific insight". The scientific method itself was probably not established until Leonardo da Vinci produced his amazing revelations and works of art (which were meticulously researched). However, that does not mean that there were no scientific insights before da Vinci. Because religion tried to explain natural phenomena, ancient religious scholars were motivated to study nature intensely in order to fit observations in with their religious doctrine. There is no shortage of ancient astronomical laboratories around the world, so it is fair to say that many astronomical insights did get added to religious texts.

In my own case, I am a linguist. Although not considered a "hard science" like chemistry, physics, or biology, it is part of the "soft sciences" like psychology, anthropology, sociology, economics, etc. The fact is that linguistic theory was originally developed by Hindu scholars and was preserved by religious tradition. It is arguably the case that all of modern linguistic theory descends from the Ashtadhyayisutrapatha (Book of Eight Chapters) authored by Panini. The reason behind the development of their linguistic science was the perceived need to preserve the language of those who authored the Vedas. It is too bad that they did not develop a tradition of studying languages other than Sanskrit.
 
Quagmire

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
atanu said:
Quagmire

This an interesting thread.

I will begin by stating the premise of Veda (and I know that premise does not fit the scientific methodology).

Richo akshare parame vyoman yasmin deva adhi vishve nisheduh,
Yastanna veda kim richa karishyatiya it tad vidus ta ime samasate.
(Rk Veda, 1.164.39)

The Veda (knowledge) reside in the transcendental field or akshara, of the highest (parame) etheral Being (vyoman) in which reside all the adhi vishve deva's (or impulses of creative intelligence, the laws of Nature), responsible for the whole manifest universe. He whose awareness is not open (na veda) to this field, what can the verses accomplish for him? Those who know this level of reality are established in evenness (samasate or rest contented) , in That ( Tat or Bhuma, fullness-wholeness of life)."
....................

I have not seen anything of sensual level physical science in Veda, which has the purpose of indicating that which is not sensually available. The physical sciences and also social subjects were dealt in Vedangas.

But Veda throws up some astounding questions that force us to re-think our sensual view of the universe. We can discuss some of those later. Here, I show an example of the difference between Veda and its commentary through use of knowledge in Vedangas.

ṛg ved 1.50.4 says the following:

O' surya you are the ferrier, object of all sight and the creator of light. You shine illumining all.

Sāyaṇācārya, a commentator in 1300AD, offers the following commentary:

tatha cha smaryate yojanānām sahasre dve dve shate
dve cha yojane ekema nimiṣārdhena kramamāna

Thus it is to be remembered , you (O' Sun)
who traverses 2202 yojana-s in one half nimeṣa ---

A yojana is ~ 9 miles. A nimeṣa is a moment, a twinkling of the eye. This nimeṣa is about 0.21333 seconds. So in 1/2 a nimeṣa (0.10667 seconds) the sun (through its light), travels 2202 yojana-s or roughly 19,818 miles ( 9 miles X 2202 yojana-s), which means 185,787.94 miles per second. Though the above calculation is not part of Veda, yet SAyAnacArya, the commentator, got this value in 1300AD. This matches closely the value of speed of light calculated much later.

Many other examples of Physical science applications can be seen, although the references are not scientifically rigorous. But that was the hallmark of Indian scripture -- the individual name was to be effaced and not highlighted, the ego was to be mutiliated and not nurtured.

A source of getting more information can be found at:

Hindu Achievements In Exact Science : Kumar Sarkar.B : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link, Atanu. I just joined the site.
 
Quagmire

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
Kilgore Trout said:
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in awhile.

Doesn't make him a scientist.
Click to expand...

Since squirrels depend primarily on their sense of smell to locate food, and since loss of sight often leads to heightened acuity of the the other senses, you could say that a blind squirrel actually has an advantage over a sighted one.

Especially considering that for most of the year a squirrel's food supply comes from caches buried in the ground (ie., out of sight), the location of which is solely dependent on the squirrels sense of smell. That said, and discounting increased susceptibility to predators, you could make an argument that a blind squirrel has a better chance of finding a nut than the average squirrel.

Since insight involves looking beyond or beneath surface appearances in order to grasp deeper meaning or more profound truths... :

in·sight (
ibreve.gif
n
prime.gif
s
imacr.gif
t
lprime.gif
)n.1. The capacity to discern the true nature of a situation; penetration.
2. The act or outcome of grasping the inward or hidden nature of things or of perceiving in an intuitive manner.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/insight

...you could say that someone who has the capacity to look beyond their immediate sensory impressions has a better chance of obtaining insights than someone who just settles for what they (think) they see.

Add to this the fact that most geniuses all through history have been considered at least a little squirrelly, if not actually nuts, by their contemporaries, I think we can safely conclude that your analogy sucks.
icon14.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top