Talk:Vedic science

message: An essay (in two parts) by Meera Nanda regarding "The mixing up of the mythos of the Vedas with the logos of science must be of great concern not just to the scientific community, but also to the religious people, for it is a distortion of both science and spirituality."
*http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2026/stories/20040102000607800.htm : "Postmodernism, Hindu nationalism and `Vedic science' " 
*http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2101/stories/20040116001408700.htm : "Postmodernism, Hindu nationalism and `Vedic science' " Part 2
*http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2004052201691000.htm&date=2004/05/22/&prd=th& :  Meera Nanda's call for secular, "free thinkers" to stand up and show so-called "Vedic science" for what it is...
Emyth 14:17, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Please note that an Anonymous Vandal (22:20, May 29, 2005 68.159.23.40) simply deleted the NPOV Dispute notice and deleted the
external links to Meera Nanda's critique of "Vedic Science".   Such actions are contrary to our values
in the Wikipedia project and will be reverted as soon as they are noticed.  Emyth 13:42, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Response to Meera Nanda's article
For a more realistic picture of 'Hinduism studies' in the US, please see following - which reveal the opposite of what Meera Nanda attempts to portray. 
U.S. Hinduism Studies: A Question of Shoddy Scholarship 
Biases in Hinduism Studies
Further, she discredits notable Indian scientist Jagdish Chandra Bose's acheivements because of his interest in Vedanta. (He is known for his pioneering work in wireless communication and invention of the Crescograph. )
Many prominent scientists (Tesla, Schroedinger, Heisenberg) were influenced by Vedanta. Interest in vedic science is not  meant to replace science with vedic study - it is only an attempt to reconcile/find the link between the two, which many suspect is more than meets the eye. It also attempts to delve into the science (see Science & technology in Ancient India), philosophy, logic contained within the Vedas. Creation science rejects portions of mainstream science where it does not correlate with the Genesis, while students of vedic science do not reject scientifically validated theories and evidence.
Ayurveda, for instance, is a system of medicine that has a 2000 yr old tradition of surgery & many practioners and patients around the world. 
Surely, it deserves more than ridicule by Meera? --Pranathi 00:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't. Ayurveda is itself a pseudoscience, and has a lot of saftey issues. You've fallen victim to the appeal to tradition. Just because it's 2000 years old, doesn't mean it's scientifically valid. I applaud Meera for having the courage to put the scientific perspective. 59.92.40.87 10:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Meera Nanda is right in asserting that science should not be distorted by introducing wrong ideas in the name of religion. But Meera Nanda is wrong if it means that a person having some religious belief must be preaching pseudoscience. Meera Nanda  has made no contribution either in the field of science or in religion, but speaks as a saviour of both. I am myself alarmed by the flood of pseudoscientific works in the name of Vedic or other religions. One has a right to profess any religion, as many great scientists did, but one should follow the rules of scientific research if one wants to put forth Vedic or non-Vedic science. As for Ayurveda, there is much in it which lacks validation, but benefits of a large number of Ayurvedic drugs,esp herbal, are now finding their way into allopathy also. It is wrong to take a lopsided partisan attitude in this regard. - Vinay Jha.VinJha 09:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vedic science as pseudoscience

message: Who is disputing what, and why? Please make the necessary changes, the dispute header needs to go. Sam Spade 16:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The text was pretty bad before I made some changes on monday. --goethean ॐ  16:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Cool, thanks. Sam Spade 02:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute header 

message: The out-of context and poorly formatted quotations that litter this article should be moved to wikiquote or deleted. In addition, I ask User:Holy Ganga to observe civility in edit summaries. — goethean ॐ 22:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. But you need to explain to the reader what the significance of these verses are, and your sources must be cited. Otherwise, it should go to Wikiquote. — goethean ॐ 22:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: These vesrses are simplest translations from original Sanskrit Vedic verses ..so self explanatry. Also, Vedic verse number is already provided. Views on Vedic science is already linked with wikiquote.--Holy Ganga 23:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me get this straight. You claim that pages of out-of-context quotations from a religious scripture unaccompanied by explanatory text constitute an encyclopedia article? — goethean ॐ 23:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What are your views  on verses in this article - Islamic science and other articles like these.-Holy Ganga 09:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See here — goethean ॐ 19:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  quotations 

message: but could there be some discussion before an article is turned into something about an entirely different topic? This used to be about the Maharishi thing termed "Vedic science". It seems to be about a vague concept of "anything that is claimed by anybody to be Vedic and scientific". Vedic science proper is Vedanga, which has its own article. The Maharishi thing and Vedanga needs to be clearly disambiguated. Ayurveda is again different, and again already has its article. Vedic mathematics is again different, and again already has its article. Maybe this should be just a disambiguation page. It is supreme bullshit to claim that "Critics dencounce these theories as pseudoscience" when this article is about everything and nothing in particular. Nobody denounces the six Vedanga, they are proper Iron Age scholarship. Critics certainly denounce the modern Maharishi and Tirthaji stuff, which have their own articles. There is no connection whatsoever between actual science of Vedic times (known as Vedanga) and the various modern schools termed Vedic. I will for this reason revert this to the stage where it was clearly about Maharishi. If you want to make it a dab page, that's fine, the Maharishi stuff can then reside at Vedic science (Maharishi) or something. dab (ᛏ) 10:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me...No Hindu organization or sect can claim "vedic  science" or any thing Hindu for there own promotion. This is a common term related to science in Vedas. -Holy Ganga 15:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I appears that there are Hindutva claims that the Vedas contain science in the modern sense of the word, independent of the Maharishi story. Both is pseudoscience, of course, but these things need to be clearly disambiguated. I might add that I am making this point out of respect for the spectacular actual Vedic sciences, Vedanga, which are far beyond anything achieved at the time (1st millennium BC) anywhere else in the world. New Age or cranky claims of nuclear physics in the Vedas and what not are a denigration obscuring the actual beauty of ancient thought. For this reason I suggest this page becomes a mere disambiguation page. Nobody claims vyakarana is pseudoscience.  Even jyotisha is an exact science within a ritual framework, and  ayurveda is as good as any traditional medicine. These should not be lumped together with recent pseudoscientific claims. dab (ᛏ) 11:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bingo. dab is right. I was unaware of the Maharishi thing, but yes, Holy Ganga's article is a recitation of Hindutva ideas which unfortunately exaggerate the achievements of ancient Vedic science. I agree with making this a disambiguation page, moving Holy Ganga's stuff to an article on Hindutva and moving the maharishi stuff to its own article. — goethean ॐ 16:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks like You are unaware of too many things. Vedic science or science in Vedas is a subject of research by many world famous intellectuals. Maharishi's views are just one little part of overall Views. http://www.atributetohinduism.com/Advanced_Concepts.htm#Advanced%20Scientific%20Concepts%20in%20Hindu%20Literature - Holy Ganga 08:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: not so much "exaggerate" as "misrepresent". Actual Iron Age Indian science is simply astounding. It is only  right to present it as uniquely advanced. It is still founded in an Iron Age mindset unrelated to "western" enlightenment and modern physics. It is an incredible mental achievement in a ritual/priestly context. The content  of the ancient corpus is to be cleanly disambiguated to recent, non mainstream / New Age claims about said corpus. dab (ᛏ) 21:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's this article, too: Indian science and technology — goethean ॐ 22:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, If you are not aware of anything related to this Topic , then learn about it before diverting it according your personal ignorant views. -Holy Ganga 10:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was saying I was not aware of these articles, since they were not properly linked. I still don't get what you want to do with this article. Make it a dumping ground for random snippets of translations from the Vedas? Translating anything from the Atharvaveda as "atomic fission" is a bad joke. You may want to remain civil, and look for consensus. I am not against including reference to your views, no matter how fringy, but you need to make clear whose views on what you are reporting. Indian science and technology seems to be beyond redemption, so if you go and talk about Atharvavedic nuclear fission over there you'll get no trouble from me. dab (ᛏ) 12:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: DAB and others should help in rectifying Indian science and technology,which is not beyond  redemption .There are serious lapses in it which can be corrected. One can be allowed to talk about Atharvavedic nuclear fission over there only if verifiable proofs are provided. If such Vedic scientists get no trouble from DAB, they may get trouble from me. I have great respect for the Vedas, but I believe there in no hidden scientific or tantric or any other meaning in the Vedas. Vedic sages were open hearted monks, and they did not hide layers of meanings like an onion. But there are a lot of things in ancient texts of India and elsewhere which need fuller and better interpretations, which posterity may provide. - Vinay Jha.VinJha 10:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: excuse me