Carl_T wrote:I am not a follower of "Donigeritva", I don't agree with her on many things, but she makes very good arguments about others. But yes, I do swing wide! My point is that from my experience Hindutva has been obsessed with showing how Hinduism and Sanskrit is "scientific". I have had a good time deconstructing that.viv wrote:
Hindutva to Doningeritva -- you really swing wide .
There are extremes that you should be easily able to ignore, some reject outright, others verify and still others accept.
Carlji, It is very simple only ...
I'm taking exception to your dismissing anything sourced to Indian antiquity just because you have come across some outlandish claims. Exactly as you keep an open mind to Donigritva - dismissing some and accepting others - you can keep the same for study of Indian antiquity and its contributions. Not all claims are incorrect nor is there a need to colour any and every comment as coming from Hindutva or something else.
Sometimes one can easily understand the reason why a certain view is held and then can describe the reality without ascribing inferiority or some other negative view. In your example above - certainly folks consider Sanskrit as scientific due to its grammar (Panini Normal Form). You might explain why you dont consider Sanskrit 'scientific' but one can certainly understand why someone would claim it is.
viv wrote:The point is that there are elements of good physics but not how we understand it now. It is not always Democritus or Archimides; it sometimes is also Kanada or Aryabhatta.
One is not off by claiming a level of physics in Vedanta - afterall the above is from one of the schools of Indian philosophy called Vaisheshika claiming inspiration from the Vedas.
I agree with the bolded that different ideas in the development of knowledge have to be acknowledged including non-Western ones that are usually ignored, but that does not mean that one can truthfully assert "Quantum mech. comes from vedanta".Why does a inspiration from the Vedas imply there is a level of physics in Vedanta?
That is not what is stated above - merely that there is a particle and atomic theory in Indic school of philosophy. This is impressive in itself, for example, Kanada proposes atoms are indivisible, have properties specific to the type of element, combine in different permutations to give new substances etc. This is pretty good explanation of basic physics. Once one understands what is in Vaisheshika one can outline the differences and explain where it falls short of current understanding but need not dismiss it as 'hindutva' inspired.
(btw, last post on this subject ...)