Does no one remember the Hindu contribution to Mathematics?

Does no one remember the Hindu contribution to Mathematics?

A well written article on things that should be obvious - but what can you do when a thousand idiots shout in your face that Hindus contributed nothing to science and technology?

To the question in the article, which is also its title, I say I remember and that too with not too much pride. Not too much pride because I know (as a Hindu) that Hindus were and are capable of this and much more. But only pride in things that happened thousands of years ago is not sufficient. Any group of people should have roots and wings (as a kindergarten school I saw recently aptly named) - roots to understand where they have come from and to establish their identity and wings to fly into the sky of unlimited opportunity that the future provides.

Or, as DVG so wonderfully says -
hosa chiguru haLe bEru kUDiralu mara sobagu |
hosayukti haLetattvadoDagUDe dharma ||
RushivAkyadoDane vijnAna mELavise |
jasavu janajIvanake - mankutimma ||

Just as a tree appears beautiful with new foliage and old roots, dharma (it is not possible to translate this word properly) too shines when it is endowed with eternal principles and new applications. Mankind benefits immensely when the wisdom of the sages combines with the innovations of science and technology.

The above is my pathetic attempt to convey the gist of the poem - but it is a quartet full of meaning and very relevant to the present for any group of people - be it Hindu, Muslim or Christian. This is what I want to see in any group, especially the Hindus, being one myself.

Articles such as the one linked are important as they serve to remind often that there were contributions from Hindus to mathematics. But just reminding ourselves of the things that were done by people in the past leads to a short-lived warm and fuzzy romantic feeling and not much else. We have to live in the present. The past is meant to assure us and to caution us - but that should be the only use of the past, though this is easier said than done.

Marshall's Hunch by Terence Monmaney in the New Yorker

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/articles/051010fr_archive03

What a great piece of writing!

I read a couple of days ago about the Nobel prize to two Australian scientists for proving that peptic ulcers are caused by a bacterium (Helicobacter). I wanted to find out more about this research when I chanced upon this article in the New Yorker.

This is an article that mixes science with its human aspect beautifully and written very well too. If Terence Monmaney writes a book, watch out for it! It should be an engrossing read!

A very illuminating read

The New Yorker: Darwin's Enemies

The New Yorker: Fact

This is a great article that brings out the badness of the new "intelligent design" theory. Well, I shouldn't say it is new for it has been around since time immemorial.

In the US, parts of which are extremely conservative, attempts are being made to project "I.D" as a valid explanation for the way things are.

This article brings out the crux of the ID theory and then goes to show why these ideas are faulty. A very thought provoking article.

Something that is similar to this is happening in India too - the truth is not being taught in classrooms and theories that are closer to the truth are getting suppressed.

The Aryan Invasion Theory has now been widely discredited. Why, scientists and historians are even speaking of an out-of-India theory wherein after a very early migration from Africa, which is supposed to be the place where all life began, into South Asia, man then migrated to other parts of Europe and the world.

Contrast this with the theory where "fair skinned Aryans" rode on their horses from the Eurasian steppes, conquered the "dark skinned natives" and drove them to South India. This theory, popularly known as the Aryan Invasion Theory, has been discredited for the past twenty years and more. But this unfortunately has caused a lot of harm - Hitler's Aryan myth had disastrous results. The DMK's half-baked self-hating ideology is also rooted in this Invasion theory. Even though this theory has been well discredited, secessionists, Islamic militants, Marxists and Christian Evangelists of various hues hold on very dearly to this theory as it serves their selfish needs.

As a result of all this, "Aryan Invasion" is what I studied in school. After "growing up", I now have developed a theory agnosticism. History is good - but should not be used for petty political and social gain. But the Truth, whatever it may be, is important and should not be subordinated to a pet political idea.

Acknowledging the "Aryan Invasion idea" as just a theory should be enough for children. Politics should not enter the classroom. But in India, as in the US, political attempts to brainwash a generation, have entered classrooms. This situation is indeed deplorable.

It is interesting - whatever government comes to power, the pet ideas of that Government are foisted on the people. Bush's Christist agenda is amply reflected in the ID vs. Evolution debate. The Congress party's anti-Hindu and anti-truth agenda and the BJP's pro-Hindu agenda are clearly reflected in their text book policies.

The article is thought provoking. But, though I am not an atheist, evolution still seems a viable theory to me.

Another idea that seems funny in Christism* is that God made Man in His own image. Why ? The dinosaurs probably thought that God was like them! The cats and dogs probably think that God made themin His image! Don't Christists fight against idolatory? Isn't making God a human shaped being idolatory? By restricting God to a human like appearance, they essentially limit what God is and isn't. This, according to me, is blasphemy. sanAtana dharma, Buddhism and most non-Semitic religions don't have this problem. Some parts of Hinduism like the Hare Krishnas, dvaitins and other devotional sects believe in a personal physical form of God, in spite of God being transcendental. But Advaitins place no such restriction on God. For God is what is and is free of attachment to any form. God can take a form or may not.

Darwin's theory is remarkable for its scope and simplicity. It is not a sacred cow but it looks like it is a very plausible theory. (As for Marx and Freud discussed in the article, the Christists are my friends)

*(not Christianity - as they derogatorily refer to other religions as 'isms and so I'm paying them back in the same coin. This terminology is courtesy Prof S Kalyanaraman)

Einstein's centenary year

It�s Albert�s world. We just live in it. - - MSNBC.com

Nice article. We definitely understand the importance of Einstein's contributions - but owing everything to Einstein is a quite a stretch. He provided seminal contributions to Physics by propounding the theory of Relativity and explaining the PhotoElectric effect, while not exactly being close to Quantum Mechanics.

But sometimes I wonder, Einstein or any other great man is a product of his times. Why, even Isaac Newton, whose intellectual achievements far outstrip any other scientist, said that he stood on the shoulders of giants!

Einstein was definitely great - but Newton far greater. In Newton's time (for a good book on Newton read James Gleick's biography of Newton), there was no scientific temper and theology ruled peoples' minds. Newton was also from the relatively intellectually backward England (at that time (1642) it definitely was just coming out of the dark ages). His achievements in the face of all such odds are some of the greatest that can be attributed to a human mind.

Going to another thought, if Newton or Einstein had not discovered what they are famous far, I am sure some one or the other would have done the same thing at around the same time. For example - Leibniz had 'invented' Calculus independent of Newton and Planck would have come around to use the Quantum Theory to explain the Photo Electric effect. Also Einstein's formulations were based on the work of Lorentz and Minkowski. So I am sure some one or the other would have discovered what Einstein and Newton did and we would be singing their glories now.

I, however, see these celebrations of centenaries and anniversaries as the celebrations of Human Achievement, as an ode to the indefatigable Human Spirit, which always takes us somewhere. Looking at that spirit, all I can do is to marvel at it and be grateful for being a part of it.

But the author of the article laments the fact that an Einstein would not be recognized today as Science has become a bureaucratic enterprise with peer-reviewed journals and professional politics. I tend to agree with the author here. Another thing is that science has 'advanced' to a stage where it would be impossible to do anything significant without a grant from the government - which would again be based on a scientist's tangible achievements rather than his innate ability to discover and theorize.

I end by repeating that we should all recognize these celebrations as not those glorifying certain individuals but as those glorifying the human spirit and humankind which thrives in the face of its own foibles.