Does Hinduism have scientific evidence proving that it's a true religion?

[Wannabe Yogi]

1) Do you agree then, that if you had not met this realized soul or felt divinity in his presence, you would not be convinced? I have a friend who is a devout follower of Putaparthi Sai Baba. He used to be a frequent visitor and felt a change in his presence. And yet, many other did not feel that. There is no shortage of allegations of fraud against Sai Baba. Having never met him, who should I believe?

This type of thing I would say the safe thing is to take a neutral position.

2) Not everyone felt the same way in the presence of Ramana. This has been my point all along. The whole thing is purely subjective and very specific to the individual's dispositions.

The spiritual life is not for everybody. Why should you believe things that are against your disposition ?

 

[zenzero]

Friend kaisersose,

Responding after having read many of your post:
Have mentioned this many times through various posts that though each form including humans are part of the *whole* the mind is individual and one has to transcend that very mind which means that the path one takes to merge back with oneness is through that individualistic mind and so any path is individualistic and personal.
Even if millions have realized and merged makes no difference in one's own journey except that having come later the previous entities experiences are available for an understanding. Yes the other benefit is that the environment is now richer with more evolved forms both positively and negatively. e.g. if summers have become warmer, winters too are becoming colder!
Have also mentioned earlier that even if one is a follower it is the follower who personally has to take that jump or has to transcend the mind individually and is not that any one else can do for another.
The Guru is simply one that has walked up a ladder and through practice has laid firm foundation to the ladder for others to walk on it and any follower who reaches the terrace or destination does not need the ladder too but being a guru or guide is also a responsibility where the guru needs to devise ways for the disciples progress which again is dependent on the disciple's keenness as the Guru's presence only establishes the right environment for the disciple to able to enlighten like the lighted lamp which lightens other unlit lamps in its presence [but needs to be close enough]

If you have not felt anything on the hills of Arunachala or other places is nothing to do with Ramana or others before but the openness of the mind to be able to receive the sparks that can still light unlit lamps.

The core of all religious teachings is the understanding and transcending the minds that each form has to merge but again the merging is not the end as it could be an end to formness and beginning of formlessness.

The above as usual is the personal understanding.

Love & rgds

 

[Milind2469]

Above argument based on micro analysis about the letter and spirit in Hindu books only increases my pride in my religion.

 

[Surya Deva]

My point was religion cannot solve the problem of unhappiness. Nothing in what you have written above came to happen due to Sankhya or Vaisheshika. Schools, hospitals and economic prosperity come out out of human endeavor in the material world.

Samkhya and Vaiseshika are also human endeavours into the material world. Vaiseshika wants to examine and classify everything that exists in the world by observation and Samkhya wants to examine how wordly perception takes place.

Indian medical theory, physical and mental health systems and engineering are heavily based on Samkhya and Vaiseshika. Ayurveda adopts pretty much the same scheme of Vaiseshika of classification by observation and uses the same 5 elements and atomic theme. Indian chemistry is largely based on Vaiseshika schemes. You undermine these schools simply because you have a pet favourite of your own which is opposed the astika tradition. I now strrongly doubt you have read much on others, other than your own, from your use of strawmans ad nauseam against them.

that religion has failed to solve the problem of pain, strife and unhappiness. If it did not work in the last 2000+ years, why do you think we should turn towards it now? How do you see your vision of a pure Hinduism (Sanatana Dharma) completely and irreverisbly eliminate unhappiness in the world? I would also like to point out that liberation is focused on solving the pain of the individual and not of all mankind.

Some religions have failed indeed. Hinduism has not failed, for it has an approx 10,000 year history of great prosperity. India was still the richest country in the world when the British arrived in India via the East India company, despite Mughal invasions. A great philosophical and scientific tradition flourished in this civilisation which lead to the development of many firsts: the first planned cities, the first sanitation system, the first public baths, the first universities, the first hospitals.

You see this as a failure? I will once again remind your Charvakas would have been killed in other parts of the world.

My position is to never blame others for our own shortcomings. By blaming others, we fail to recognize our own weakenesses and thereby, any chance of correcting them. We have to accept blame for letting foreigners rule us for a thousand years.

This kind of view is unfortunate and it appears you have quite the inferiority complex about your own culture. Were the jews to blame for the holocausts that was inflicted on them? Then how are Indians to be blamed for the holocausts that were inflicted on them?

Your kind of thinking is obsolete victorian thinking where the victim is blamed for being victimized. Still today, women who are raped are blamed for being raped. How is it the fault of the woman that she has been raped?

We have had a consistent history of being weak and unless we accept that and stop hiding behind the fig leaf of non-violence and other excuses, there cannot be an improvement.

No, we do not. Are you forgetting the vast empires we had such as the Mauraya empire and Gupta empire? The Ksatriya spirit has always been a major part of our culture. Are you forgetting how the mighty Indian army caused Alexandra and his army to flee in terror? A minor Indian king Porus was enough to contain the entire might of the Greek empire. Even when the Mughals arrived, we did not just sit idle, we fought tooth and nail. Are you forgetting the brave Rajputs? The Muslims were able to completely destroy every other civilisation they invaded and convert them to 100% muslim, including the mighty Persia, but in India they failed miserably. India is still 80% Hindu after 1000 years of foreign domination.

Regardless of Biritish atrocities, our economic deterioration (and China's) was due to the industrial revolution changing the old world economy. There was a focus shift that happened in the West and the East was far removed from it. We were late in adapting and we are still playing catchup. But, we have the numbers and it is only a matter of time before the balance of powers is restored.

Complete and utter garbage. Our economy deteroirated because all our industries were taxed into oblivion and then our education system was abolished, leading to Indians becoming unemployed and illiterate. Then over just 100 years of British rule 25 million Indians died in famines, because the British did not care to do anything about us - they had a do-nothing policy. They looted all our wealth and sent it back to England which fuelled the industrial revolution here. This looting was so extreme, that even the word "loot" which is Hindi entered the English dictionary. We suffered an economic genocide of monsterous rapacity. We were treated like savages in our own country and could not go into places there, because of signs saying, "Dogs and Indians not allowed"

I am surprised as an Indian you do not know this. It is widely reported by Indian scholars, as well as Western scholars how destructive, racist and brutal british rule was to India, its economy and its culture.

I am simply saying that it is not the case that the world is drowned in sorrow and misery - as religions claim. If we pick out a random set of hundred people around the world, ask them to follow a set of rules and work towards a permanent state of liberation (of their souls) that may happen after a few decades or after death, how many do you think will sign up? Hardly anyone, in my opinion.

About 20+ million people in America practice Yoga. In the world Yoga is a massive multi-billion dollar industry. It is clear that people do want to practice the Hindu means of liberation.
In any case I am not going to argue with you on how depraved the human condition is. You obviously take your comforts for granted. It is not the same for about 80% of the world population. The history of the world has been a history of oppression, of war, of genocide and of poverty.

The goal is ennoble the world and end all suffering so everybody is peaceful, harminious and happy is indeed a noble goal and the goal behind all human endeavour. I think you are the only one who objects to such a noble ideal.

As I stated earlier, empirical evidence is the goal. Inference is only a concern when dealing with the paranormal. .

Atoms are not empirical evidence. They are inferences. Do you think atoms are paranormal then?
You are inconsistent in that you accept some inferences but reject others. It seems like you only reject those inferences that entail conclusions you do not like

Again, the above texts state Lokayata as a purva paksha and deal with the exact same argument. To quote a few lines - The mixture of of the forms of matter that gives rise to conscisousness is not an arbitrary one.; it is a specific form of mixture leading to a specific kind of transformation (parinaama vishesha). When the forms of matter form the body, the transformation take place and consciousness appears in the body. But in things like the jar and others, the transformation does not take place and hence, they are not conscious. Secondly, it is not true that the quality in the effect comes from the quality in the cause. The various ingredients of a spiritious drink do not possess individually any intoxicating power; but when they are mixed in a particular proportion and undergo transformation, they become characterized by such power. The case of the body being conscious, in spite of its production out of unconscious material elements may be similarly explained. So long as one lives, transformation happens and the body remains conscious. When death comes, this transformation is lo longer there and the body becomes unconscious.

So here is the problem with this argument. What transformations of matter lead to consciousness? This argument is based on an a priori assumption that a certain transformation will lead to consciousness, and the assumption is in need of proof. To use the assumption as proof itself is to commit the fallacy of circular reasoning.

If consciousness is a property of the body then why is it not measurable like other properties charge, weight, mass, length, dimensions, temperature? All matter has these basic properties but nobody has ever observed a consciousness property in matter. To say there is one, requires proof. Where is the proof?

If consciousness is the propety of something, then how does consciousness become aware of what it is the property of? Can charge become aware that it is neutral, positive or negative? Does weight become aware that it is heavy or light?

The Charvaka argument says that when matter transforms in a certain way it can form spirited drinks that can develop the power of intoxication. Yes, sure, but the drink itself is not intoxicated and does not know it is intoxicated. Intoxication only takes place when it is contact with a conscious being. In other words the awareness of intoxication is happening to the conscious being, not the drink itself.

Covered above.

It does not answer my argument. You only ever observe bodies being born and dying. You never observe consciousness being born or dying. How then can you state the body dying means consciousness is dying? Your premise does not entail your conclusion.

 

[Surya Deva]

This is a good one. I am conscious of myself. The five senses are for information received from outside and do not apply in this case. Nor do I need a separate sense to be aware of myself. By my own observation, this consciousness is inextricably tied to my body and hence is within time and space. Or to make it more clear, me or my consciousness has no existence apart from my body.

No, wait you are not conscious or observe yourself. You are only ever conscious OF something. If you are consciousness, and you maintain that your object of conscousness is also you, then you and your object are both the same. This is absurd. This means that you and I are both the same, because you are conscious of me. This means you and the apple you eat are both the same, because you are conscious of it.

Clearly then you cannot be the object you are conscious of. Now when you look within with your internal sense of mind what do you find? You find nothing more than constantly changing mental states. Again, you are the observer and they are your objects. The observer is not the object.

So I ask you again how do you observe yourself?

 

[Onkara]

There is a subtle difference. Consciousness is the foundation on which an object can be known to exist. Without consciousness there is no object, in the same way there is no external world to report whilst in deep sleep. If one positions oneself at the level of consciousness then one is everything that consciousness includes i.e. the apple, the person eating and the eating of the apple.

In my opinion it does not matter if consciousness is confirmed to be dependent on the brain, because in that case the brain/body cannot exist i.e. know itself or be complete by itself, without consciousness. There is no duality

 

[LuisDantas]

In which sense does the absence of consciousness deny the existence of the object?

I mean, sure we feel it that way on a strictly personal level, but doesn't that amount to delusion?

 

[Onkara]

In which sense does the absence of consciousness deny the existence of the object?

I mean, sure we feel it that way on a strictly personal level, but doesn't that amount to delusion?

Excellent point! Yes, it negates the existence of an object. Whilst you are in deep sleep the world is negated.

This is one reason why the world is sometimes said to be unreal or illusionary in Hindu texts, because the ancient seers saw that taking the world to be real leads to suffering.

However in actual fact through daily repetition, memory and experience you and I can confirm that the world still continues and looks real. So, as you say, is this really delusional?

The answer is that you are not deluded if you realise that the world depends on you, as consciousness. That your consciousness confirms the world through the bodily senses.

Delusion, of any kind, depends on taking our thoughts and senses to be real, when they can be confirmed to not be real. If I said "I see a pink banana" you would say "Onkara is deluded". But if I say, "I can imagine a pink banana" you might say "that's acceptable as it is possible to imagine that".

So the only way around delusion is to recognise that you are pure consciousness and all depends on that consciousness. It does not imply there really is delusion or illusion, it just means you know the ultimate truth (according to the ancient seers).

 

[Surya Deva]

In which sense does the absence of consciousness deny the existence of the object?

I mean, sure we feel it that way on a strictly personal level, but doesn't that amount to delusion?

Excellent answer by Onkara there.

The absence of consciousness is the absence of perception. The absence of perception is the absence of knowledge. The absence of knowledge is the absence of all objects.

We take objective existence for granted, without realising that nothing is really objective, for it is all dependent on our senses and mind and consciousness for their existence. If you had different senses, mind and consciousness you would not be seeing the same object. How do you think a bird or a bat senses the world? You cannot answer this question of course, because you are not a bird or a bat.

Reality is a question of perception.

 

[kaisersose]

We are losing sight of the original topic.

Indian medical theory, physical and mental health systems and engineering are heavily based on Samkhya and Vaiseshika.

Where is the evidence for that?

Some religions have failed indeed. Hinduism has not failed, for it has an approx 10,000 year history of great prosperity. India was still the richest country in the world when the British arrived in India via the East India company, despite Mughal invasions. A great philosophical and scientific tradition flourished in this civilisation which lead to the development of many firsts: the first planned cities, the first sanitation system, the first public baths, the first universities, the first hospitals.
You see this as a failure? I will once again remind your Charvakas would have been killed in other parts of the world.

I don't think you are understanding me. I will ask once again. Where is the evidence that religion was the basis of all this development? And how do you know Carvakas were not persecuted? Was it Hemadri who wrote that Carvakas should be kicked out of the Sabha like dogs?

This kind of view is unfortunate and it appears you have quite the inferiority complex about your own culture. Were the jews to blame for the holocausts that was inflicted on them? Then how are Indians to be blamed for the holocausts that were inflicted on them?
our kind of thinking is obsolete victorian thinking where the victim is blamed for being victimized. Still today, women who are raped are blamed for being raped. How is it the fault of the woman that she has been raped?

Wrong examples. The Jews were victims of a holocaust in a foreign land caused a by a bigger and powerful enemy. We Indians were controlled by foreigners (minority) in our own land for one thousand years. Odd examples of revolutions do not suffice - not to justify a whole millenium of foreign rule. At no time was the number of British in India in excess of a hundred thousand and yet, they walked all over a population of millions. That is what I call weakness. Weakness is not just not revolting; it is also not succeeding.

No, we do not. Are you forgetting the vast empires we had such as the Mauraya empire and Gupta empire? The Ksatriya spirit has always been a major part of our culture. Are you forgetting how the mighty Indian army caused Alexandra and his army to flee in terror?

There is no evidence that Alexander was routed in India. He defeated Porus and he was all set to take on the Nandas. His army however was exhausted and was in mood to take on another huge army. This was the reason for him to turn back and if you disagree please show evidence. I can readily find a dozen web sites (including encyclopedias) to prove
my point. I can also provide book references.

Complete and utter garbage. Our economy deteroirated because all our industries were taxed into oblivion and then our education system was abolished, leading to Indians becoming unemployed and illiterate. Then over just 100 years of British rule 25 million Indians died in famines, because the British did not care to do anything about us - they had a do-nothing policy. They looted all our wealth and sent it back to England which fuelled the industrial revolution here. This looting was so extreme, that even the word "loot" which is Hindi entered the English dictionary. We suffered an economic genocide of monsterous rapacity. We were treated like savages in our own country and could not go into places there, because of signs saying, "Dogs and Indians not allowed"

You are losing sight of the big picture. Even without British rule, we would have had a poor economy because of changes due to the Industrial revolution. The world changed and we were geographically far removed from it. However, this has nothing to do at all with the topic in hand.

About 20+ million people in America practice Yoga. In the world Yoga is a massive multi-billion dollar industry. It is clear that people do want to practice the Hindu means of liberation.

How many of them are practicising Yoga for Liberation vs. Yoga for health and de-stressing? It is my bet that 8/10 Americans who practice Yoga never even heard of Liberation.

In any case I am not going to argue with you on how depraved the human condition is. You obviously take your comforts for granted. It is not the same for about 80% of the world population. The history of the world has been a history of oppression, of war, of genocide and of poverty.

We have two different world views. One of the early criticism of Lokayata against Buddhism was their position was focused on all the unhappiness in the world while the LOkayata position focused on all the happiness that one could possibly get in this life, in this world.

Granting your world view for a moment, that it is all pain and misery, what is the solution offered here by religion? It cannot be Moksha, as we know that Moksha is for the individual and not for the collective whole. And most individuals are not interested in the concept anyway. So what is the solution you offer?

Atoms are not empirical evidence. They are inferences. Do you think atoms are paranormal then?
You are inconsistent in that you accept some inferences but reject others. It seems like you only reject those inferences that entail conclusions you do not like

I already clarified in my previous posts, my position on Inference. Please look it up.

So here is the problem with this argument. What transformations of matter lead to consciousness? This argument is based on an a priori assumption that a certain transformation will lead to consciousness, and the assumption is in need of proof. To use the assumption as proof itself is to commit the fallacy of circular reasoning.

The proof is perception. There is no consciousness in the dead body, though it was consicous when alive.

If consciousness is a property of the body then why is it not measurable like other properties charge, weight, mass, length, dimensions, temperature? All matter has these basic properties but nobody has ever observed a consciousness property in matter. To say there is one, requires proof. Where is the proof?

Perception again. I know I exist. What other proof do I need? It is a very simple thing that is unacceptable to you because it pulls the carpet from under your spiritual beliefs. So it has got to be something more complex than that - something that aligns with your preconceived beliefs in the existence of a soul that can be liberated and live forever in a state of bliss. You did not start from observation and end up there. The direction was in the other way. (My opinion).

This is why a hard skeptic/materliast view is unattractive. It does not offer that permanence, the "beyond death" option that is very important to people. This need has been successfully exploited by all religions, without exception.

The Charvaka argument says that when matter transforms in a certain way it can form spirited drinks that can develop the power of intoxication. Yes, sure, but the drink itself is not intoxicated and does not know it is intoxicated. Intoxication only takes place when it is contact with a conscious being. In other words the awareness of intoxication is happening to the conscious being, not the drink itself.

I don't know what you are trying to say here. The intoxicating drink example is an illustration of how a certain transformation can bring into effect something that was not previously there and likewise remove from effect something that existed before.

Again, we are digressing. The topic is Scientific evidence proving that Hinduism = a true religion.

1) You agree that all other religions are not scientific.
2) You agree that not all parts of Hinduism are scientific. It is just some parts of it.
3) You are relying on the logic used by Nyaya and Vaisheshika to support your argument that Hinduism is scientific.
4) As Nyaya and Vaisheshika have been dead for long, they are not part of present day HInduism, therefore we can safely conclude Hinduism today is not scientific.
5) Vaisheshika was unable to survive independently and was merged into Nyaya. So it just becomes the question of whether Nyaya was scientific or not.
6) Your claim then must be that Nyaya Epistemology was scientific.

Let me know if we are in agreement on these points or if I left out something. We will try and keeep the discussion focused.

 

[TTCUSM]

You are losing sight of the big picture. Even without British rule, we would have had a poor economy because of changes due to the Industrial revolution. The world changed and we were geographically far removed from it. However, this has nothing to do at all with the topic in hand.

You might want to change your title from "Materialist" to "Macaulayite".

Do you honestly believe that Industrialization wouldn't have taken place if India wasn't colonized by the British?
Japan was never colonized, and they were able to industrialize on their own.

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

Though have not much understanding of the vedas, have heard that they contain many scientific aspects too even the concept of *zero* came from here.

What is important is to understand that CHANGE is permanent and one simply has to adapt to those changes. It always happens that at a point in time most [in a given society]are unable to adapt themselves to the changes taking place and fall behind due to lack of *energy*, which gets spent on other activities.
When that happens then one again starts to conserve energy and again rise to lead the cycle.
It is well known that India was at one time the most developed nation in every way and then with Industrialization the west appears to have developed and again the cycle is moved its full circle with Asia moving up with renewed vigour after years of introspection, meditation and the west not moving forward [economically] after Asia will come the turn of South Americas and then Africa before again the west regains supremacy.
The above is a general perceptive view for an understanding as debates never proves any point except how logically convincing a speaker is; likewise one can never prove anything to everyone except that the individual himself realizes the TRUTH *himself*; for which the path one takes his his personal way of life and which is also labelled as *religion*.

Love & rgds

 

[kaisersose]

You might want to change your title from "Materialist" to "Macaulayite".
Do you honestly believe that Industrialization wouldn't have taken place if India wasn't colonized by the British?

Please show me where I said that. Is it really that hard to be direct and not distort things?

 

[kaisersose]

Friends,
Though have not much understanding of the vedas, have heard that they contain many scientific aspects too even the concept of *zero* came from here.

Don't believe everything you hear. The Zero is not from any of the Vedas. Using Zero as a placeholder is attributed to Aryabhatta (4th century AD) and is known from the writings of Bhaskara (7th century AD). The rules of Zero were first written down by Brahmagupta who lived after Arya Bhatta. The Vedas had become canonical (as in not to be edited), long before Aryabhatta's time.

The general confusion perhaps comes from calling brances of science math and astrology as Veda. People mistakenly take this to mean any presence of science or math in ancient India belongs to one of the four Vedas. I even recall someone saying the Gulab Jamoon is a Vedic recipe!

Note: The zero was always known to mathematicians around the world long before Aryabhatta. It was called Shunya in India, and was also known to Babylonians and Greeks. But it was Aryabhatta's work that formed the basis of the decimal based system that is in use today. It should also be noted that Mayans discovered the zero independently.

 

[Satsangi]

The general confusion perhaps comes from calling brances of science math and astrology as Veda. It should also be noted that Mayans discovered the zero independently.

I think that the confusion comes when you try to restrict the Vedas to the four books that you find printed by someone. BTW, who said Mayans invented zero? They were not even on any radar till someone found their calender stopped in 2012 and came out with another doomsday theory.

Regards,

 

[zenzero]

Friend kaisersose,

Thank you for pointing to few facts about the vedas.

However the point of the post was development attributed to industrialization in the west by someone is not fully correct as through evolution itself new things are thrown up through various human mediums is what truth is and though evolutionary process appears to be in fits and starts is because is only a perception as one is unable to be conscious continuously of whatever happens around an individual and so the gaps like we ourselves can not say how we grew up on a day to day basis over the years.

Meaning to state that even though religion is very scientific, science itself is a long way off to record and observe with requisite tools to be accepted as scientific.

Love & rgds

 

[HUMANIDEE]

We are all able to google earth search "Rama's Bridge"... I see this as proof perfect. It could be a bit more perfect if the ships would have never crossed through there, but if you were to look at the image now, it confirms the story of Ramayana - where Hanuman assisted Lord Rama to rescue his wife Sita from Ravana, who had tricked her and abducted her to Sri Lanka. So, if you see the image, there is a bridge and if we had google earth a thousand years ago, which sadly we don't, you would have seen two dolphins, they are barely visible now, but they are there.

 

[kaisersose]

I think that the confusion comes when you try to restrict the Vedas to the four books that you find printed by someone.

It has nothing to do with printing. What do you think the Gita means by Trai-Vidyah in 9.20? Long before printing was invented, the three Vedas were formalized to be the Rik, Sama and the Yajur (the Atharvana is sometimes added to this list to count four Vedas). The Vishnu and Bhagavata Puranas describe how a single Veda was classified into Rig,Sama, Yajur and Atharvana by Vyasa at the start of Kali-yuga. As a Sri-Vaishnava, you woud accept the authority of the Vishnu Purana and therefore the someone you refer to, is Vyasa. Every Brahmana is associated with at least one of these three Vedas. For example, most Karnataka Brahmins are Rig-Vedins. A number of Tamilnadu Brahmins are Yajur-Vedins, though we also have Sama-Vedins and Rig-Vedins there as well.

Here is a good primer on the subject -
Vedas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you want to offer a new meaning for the Veda, different from the existing one, please provide justification. Also, please describe how such a new definition is in line with Vishishtadvaita.

BTW, who said Mayans invented zero?

Everyone?

Bing it - mayan zero - Bing

 

[Satsangi]

Wikipedia is the last resorce to define the Vedas; it may do a good job intellectually though- but that is very narrow and restrictive and false approach.. I am not disagreeing with the three or four divisions of the Vedas. But that does not restrict it to understanding Vedas by reading it from a book. The true meaning of Veda Vakyas come after enlightenment from a GURU.

Your link on Mayan and zero brings up a few topics written by no "authority" as you would say. NONE say that they invented zero INDEPENDENTLY.

Regards,

 

[kaisersose]

Wikipedia is the last resorce to define the Vedas; it may do a good job intellectually though- but that is very narrow and restrictive and false approach.. I am not disagreeing with the three or four divisions of the Vedas. But that does not restrict it to understanding Vedas by reading it from a book. The true meaning of Veda Vakyas come after enlightenment from a GURU.

We were talking about what qualifies as the Veda. Mathematics, Astrology, Science, etc., are Veda in the sense of Veda = Knowledge. But in the common usage of the word, they are not Veda. In other words, Indian mathematics is not from one of the four Vedas.

Your link on Mayan and zero brings up a few topics written by no "authority" as you would say. NONE say that they invented zero INDEPENDENTLY.
Regards,

Where do you think they got the zero from? Incase you are implying they copied it from India, they did not use a base 10 or binary system as in ancient India. They used a base 20 system and I am not aware of any other culture around the world using base 20.