{"id":6324,"date":"2012-06-26T09:35:00","date_gmt":"2012-06-26T09:35:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.eastrovedica.com\/wordpress\/?p=6324"},"modified":"2012-06-26T09:35:00","modified_gmt":"2012-06-26T09:35:00","slug":"sanskrit-as-a-language-of-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.eastrovedica.com\/wordpress\/?p=6324","title":{"rendered":"Sanskrit As A Language Of Science"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
<\/span><\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
<\/span>By
\n: Justice Markandey Katju, Judge, Supreme Court of India
Speech delivered on
\n13.10.2009 in the Indian Institute of Science Bangalore<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
\n
Friends,<\/p>\n

It
\nis a great honour for me to be invited to speak in the Indian Institute of
\nScience, Bangalore, which is renowned as one of the foremost scientific
\ninstitutes in India, and which indeed is recognized as a great centre of science
\nthroughout the world. Your institute has produced great scientists of
\ninternational repute.<\/p>\n

The topic which I have chosen to speak on today is
\n`Sanskrit as a language of Science’. I have chosen this topic for two
\nreasons:<\/b><\/span><\/div>\n

    \n
  1. You are
    \nyourselves scientists, and hence would naturally like to know about your
    \nscientific heritage and the great scientific achievements of your
    \nancestors.<\/b><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
    \n
    <\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
      \n
    1. Today
      \nIndia is facing huge problems, and in my opinion these can only be solved by
      \nscience. We have to spread the scientific outlook to every nook and corner of
      \nour country, if we are to progress. And by science I mean not just physics,
      \nchemistry and biology but the entire scientific outlook. We must develop the
      \nrational and questioning attitude in our people, and abolish superstitions and
      \nempty rituals.<\/b><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
      \nThe
      \nfoundation of India culture is based on the Sanskrit language. There is a
      \nmisconception about the Sanskrit language that it is only a language for
      \nchanting mantras in temples or religious ceremonies. However, that is less than
      \n5% of the Sanskrit literature. More than 95% of the Sanskrit literature has
      \nnothing to do with religion, and instead it deals with philosophy, law, science,
      \nliterature, grammar, phonetics, interpretation etc. In fact Sanskrit was the
      \nlanguage of free thinkers, who questioned everything, and expressed the widest
      \nspectrum of thoughts on various subjects. In particular, Sanskrit was the
      \nlanguage of our scientists in ancient India. Today, no doubt, we are behind the
      \nWestern countries in science, but there was a time when India was leading the
      \nwhole world in science. Knowledge of the great scientific achievements of our
      \nancestors and our scientific heritage will give us the encouragement and moral
      \nstrength to once again take India to the forefront of science in the modern
      \nworld.<\/p>\n

      The word `Sanskrit’ means \u201cprepared, pure, refined or prefect\u201d. It
      \nwas not for nothing that it was called the `devavani’ (language of the Gods). It
      \nhas an outstanding place in our culture and indeed was recognized as a language
      \nof rare sublimity by the whole world. Sanskrit was the language of our
      \nphilosophers, our scientists, our mathematicians, our poets and playwrights, our
      \ngrammarians, our jurists, etc. In grammar, Panini and Patanjali (authors of
      \nAshtadhyayi and the Mahabhashya) have no equals in the world; in astronomy and
      \nmathematics the works of Aryabhatta, Brahmagupta and Bhaskar opened up new
      \nfrontiers for mankind, as did the works of Charak and Sushrut in medicine. In
      \nphilosophy Gautam (founder of the Nyaya system), Ashvaghosha (author of Buddha
      \nCharita), Kapila (founder of the Sankhya system), Shankaracharya, Brihaspati,
      \netc., present the widest range of philosophical systems the world has ever seen,
      \nfrom deeply religious to strongly atheistic. Jaimini’s Mimansa Sutras laid the
      \nfoundation of a whole system of rational interpretation of texts which was used
      \nnot only in religion but also in law, philosophy, grammar, etc. In literature,
      \nthe contribution of Sanskrit is of the foremost order. The works of Kalidas
      \n(Shakuntala, Meghdoot, Malavikagnimitra, etc.), Bhavabhuti (Malti Madhav, Uttar
      \nRamcharit, etc.) and the epics of Valmiki, Vyas, etc. are known all over the
      \nworld. These and countless other Sanskrit works kept the light of learning
      \nablaze in our country upto modern times.<\/p>\n

      In this talk I am confining
      \nmyself to only that part of Sanskrit literature which is related to
      \nscience.<\/p>\n

      As already stated above, there is a great misconception about
      \nSanskrit that it is only a language to be recited as mantras in temples or in
      \nreligious ceremonies. However, that is only 5% of the Sanskrit
      \nliterature.<\/span> <\/span>
      \nThe remaining 95% has nothing to do with religion.<\/span> <\/span>
      \n<\/span> <\/span>In
      \nparticular, Sanskrit was the language in which all our great scientists in
      \nancient India wrote their works.<\/p>\n

      Before proceeding further, I may take a
      \ndigression from the topic<\/span> <\/span>
      \nunder discussion.<\/span> <\/span>
      \nIn fact, I will be taking several digressions during the course of this talk,
      \nand initially you may think that this digression has nothing to do with the
      \nsubject under discussion, viz. Sanskrit as a language of science, but at the end
      \nof the digression you will realize its intimate connection with the
      \nsubject.<\/p>\n

      The first digression is to ask what is India ? Although we are
      \nall Indians, many of us do not know our own country and hence I will
      \nexplain.<\/p>\n

      India is broadly a country of immigrants.<\/u>
      While
      \nNorth America (USA and Canada) is a country of new immigrants, who came mainly
      \nfrom Europe over the last four or five centuries, India is a country of old
      \nimmigrants in which people came over the last ten thousand years or so. Probably
      \nabout 95 % people living in India today are descendants of immigrants who came
      \nmainly from the North-West and to a lesser extent from the North-East. Since
      \nthis is a point of great importance for the understanding of our country, it is
      \nnecessary to go into it in some detail (for further details see my article
      \n\u2018Kalidas Ghalib Academy for Mutual Understanding\u2019 on the website
      \nkgfindia.com).<\/p>\n

      People migrate from uncomfortable areas to comfortable
      \nareas.<\/span> <\/span>
      \nThis is natural because everyone wants to live in comfort. Before the coming of
      \nmodern industry there were agricultural societies everywhere and India was a
      \nparadise for these because agriculture requires level land, fertile soil, plenty
      \nof water for irrigation, temperate climate etc. which was in abundance in
      \nIndia.<\/span> <\/span>
      \nWhy should anybody living in India migrate to, say, Afghanistan which has a
      \nharsh terrain, rocky and mountainous and covered with snow for several months in
      \na year when one cannot grow any crop?<\/span> <\/span>
      \nHence, almost all immigrations and invasions came from outside into India
      \n(except those Indians who were sent out during British rule as indentured
      \nlabour, and the recent migration of a few million Indians to the developed
      \ncountries for job opportunities).<\/span> <\/span>
      \nThere is perhaps not a single instance of an invasion from India to outside
      \nIndia.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

      India
      \nwas a veritable paradise for agricultural societies because it has level &
      \nfertile land, hundreds of rivers, forests etc. and is rich in natural resources.
      \nHence for thousands of years people kept pouring into India because they found a
      \ncomfortable life here in a country which was gifted by nature.<\/p>\n

      As the
      \ngreat Urdu poet Firaq Gorakhpuri wrote:<\/span><\/span><\/b><\/div>\n

      \n\n\n\n\n\n
      \n
      \n\u201cSar
      \nZamin-e-hind par aqwaam-e-alam ke firaq<\/span>
      kafile
      \nguzarte gae Hindustan banta gaya\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/b><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      \n
      \nWhich
      \nmeans<\/span> <\/span>–<\/span><\/span><\/b><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      \n
      \n\u201cIn
      \nthe land of Hind, the Caravans of the peoples of the world kept coming in and
      \nIndia kept getting formed\u201d.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/b><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n
      \n
      Who
      \nwere the original inhabitants of India ? At one time it was believed that the
      \nDravidians were the original inhabitants. However, the generally accepted view
      \nnow is that the original inhabitants of India were the<\/span> <\/span>pre-Dravidians
      \naborigines<\/span><\/u>whose
      \ndescendants are the speakers of the Munda language who presently live in forest
      \nareas of Chota Nagpur, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa, West Bengal etc., the
      \nTodas of the Nilgiris, and others <\/span> <\/span>known
      \nas Adivasis.<\/span> <\/span>
      \nTheir population is only 5 to 7% of the total population of India.<\/span> <\/span>
      \nThe remaining about 95% people living in India today are descendants of
      \nimmigrants who came mainly from the north-west. <\/span> <\/span>Even
      \nthe Dravidians are now believed to have come from outside, probably from the
      \npresent Pakistan and Afghanistan areas, and this theory is supported by the
      \nexistence even today of a Dravidian language called Brahui which is spoken by 3
      \nmillion people in Western Pakistan (see Brahui on Google).<\/span> <\/span>
      \nIn this connection one may also see <\/span>\u2018<\/span>Cambridge
      \nHistory of India,<\/span> <\/span>
      \nVol. I.<\/p>\n

      There are a large number of religions, castes, languages, ethnic
      \ngroups, cultures etc. in our country, which is due to the fact that India is a
      \ncountry of immigrants. <\/span> <\/span>Somebody
      \nis tall, somebody is short, some are dark, some are fair complexioned, with all
      \nkinds of shades in between, someone has Caucasian features, someone has
      \nMongoloid features, someone has Negroid features, etc. There are differences in
      \ndress, food habits and various other matters.<\/p>\n

      We may compare India with
      \nChina which is larger both in population and in land area than India.
      \n<\/span> <\/span>China
      \nhas a population of about 1.3 billion whereas our population is roughly 1.15
      \nbillion.<\/span> <\/span>
      \nAlso, China has more than twice our land area.<\/span>  <\/span>
      \nHowever, all Chinese have Mongoloid features; they have a common written script
      \n(Mandarin Chinese) and 95% of them belong to one ethnic group, called
      \nthe<\/span> <\/span>Han
      \nChinese<\/span>.
      \n<\/span> <\/span>Hence
      \nthere is<\/span> <\/span>
      \nbroad homogeneity in China.<\/p>\n

      On the other hand, as stated above, India has
      \ntremendous diversity and this is due to the large scale migrations and invasions
      \ninto India over thousands of years. The various immigrants\/invaders who came
      \ninto India brought with them their different cultures, languages, religions,
      \netc. which accounts for the tremendous diversity in India.<\/p>\n

      As already
      \nstated above India was a country ideally suited<\/span> <\/span>
      \nfor agriculture as it has level land, fertile soil, plenty of water, temperate
      \nclimate etc.<\/span> <\/span>
      \nIt is only in agricultural society that culture, arts and science can
      \ngrow.<\/span> <\/span>
      \nIn the preceding hunting stage these cannot grow because man has no free time in
      \nthe hunting stage, and he has to devote all his time to get his food by hunting
      \nanimals etc.<\/span> <\/span>
      \nThe struggle for existence compels him to do this from morning to night leaving
      \nhim no free time for doing free thinking.<\/span> <\/span>
      \nIt is only when agriculture begins that man can get some free time for
      \nthinking.<\/span> <\/span>
      \nSince India was a country ideally suited for agriculture, people had free time
      \nhere to do thinking.<\/span> <\/span>
      \nIn ancient India there was a lot of intellectual activity.<\/span>  <\/span>
      \nIn our literature we read hundreds of instances of Shastrarthas, which were
      \ndebates in which the intellectuals freely discussed their<\/span> <\/span>
      \npoints of view in the presence of a large assembly.<\/span> <\/span>
      \nThousands of books in Sanskrit were written on various subjects, though perhaps
      \nless than 10% have survived the ravages of time.<\/p>\n

      I have made this
      \ndigression to point out that it was the geographical condition of India (flat
      \nand fertile land, temperate climate etc.) which enabled our ancestors to
      \nprogress a lot in science and culture as our country was ideal for agriculture
      \nand hence provided a lot of free time for thinking.<\/p>\n

      Before dealing with
      \nthe specific achievements of our ancestors in the fields of Mathematics,
      \nAstronomy, Medicine, Engineering, etc. it is necessary to mention that the
      \nSanskrit language made two great contributions to the development and progress
      \nof science in ancient India. :-<\/span><\/span><\/b><\/div>\n

        \n
      1. A
        \nlanguage was created by the great grammarian Panini, namely Classical Sanskrit,
        \nwhich enabled scientific ideas to be expressed with great precision, logic and
        \nelegance. Science requires precision. Also, science requires a written language
        \nin which ideas can be written with great precision and logic.<\/p>\n

        No doubt
        \nthe first language of people everywhere in the world is the spoken language, but
        \nfurther development of thinking cannot take place unless there is a written
        \nlanguage in which ideas can be expressed with precision. <\/span> <\/span>A
        \nscientist may think out new ideas in his mind, but these will remain rambling,
        \ndiffused and disorganized ideas unless they are set down in writing. By writing
        \nwe give our ideas greater clarity and make them coherent and in a logical
        \nsequence, somewhat like in a mathematical theorem where each step logically
        \nfollows from the previous step. Hence for progress in science a written language
        \nis absolutely essential in which scientific ideas can be expressed with great
        \nprecision and logic.<\/span><\/span><\/b><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        \n
        <\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
          \n
        1. A
          \nphilosophy is required for the progress of science to give support and
          \nencouragement to science and scientific development.<\/b><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
          \nAs
          \nregards the first point mentioned above I will have to make another digression
          \nand go a little deeper and<\/span> <\/span>
          \nmust tell you a little about the development of the Sanskrit language.<\/p>\n

          In
          \nfact Sanskrit is not just one language, there are several Sanskrits. What
          \nwe<\/span> <\/span>
          \ncall Sanskrit today is really Panini’s Sanskrit, also known as Classical
          \nSanskrit or Laukik Sanskrit, and this is what is taught in our schools and
          \nuniversities today, and it is in this language that all our scientists wrote
          \ntheir great works. However, there were earlier Sanskrits too which were somewhat
          \ndifferent from Classical Sanskrit.<\/p>\n

          The earliest Sanskrit work is the Rig
          \nVeda, which was probably composed around 2000 B.C. <\/span> <\/span>However,
          \nit was subsequently continued from generation to generation by<\/span> <\/span>oral<\/span><\/u> <\/span>tradition,
          \nand had to be memorized orally in the Gurukul by the young boys by repeating the
          \nverses chanted by their Guru. <\/span> <\/span>The
          \nRig Veda is the most sacred of Hindu literature, and it consists of 1028 hymns
          \n(richas) to various nature gods e.g. Indra, agni, surya, soma, varuna
          \netc.<\/p>\n

          Language changes with passage of time. For instance, it is difficult
          \nto understand Shakespeare’s plays today without a good commentary because
          \nShakespeare wrote in the 16th Century A.D. and since then the English language
          \nhas changed. Many of the words and expressions which were in vogue in
          \nShakespeare’s time are no longer in vogue today. Hence we cannot understand
          \nShakespeare’s plays today without a good commentary.<\/p>\n

          Similarly, the
          \nSanskrit language kept changing from around 2000 B.C. when the Rig Veda was
          \ncomposed to about 500 B.C. i.e. for about 1500 years. In the 5th Century B.C.
          \nthe great scholar Panini, who was perhaps the greatest grammarian the world has
          \never seen, wrote his great book `Ashtadhyayi’ (book of eight chapters). In this
          \nbook Panini fixed the rules of Sanskrit,<\/span> <\/span>and
          \nthereafter no further changes in Sanskrit were permitted<\/span><\/u> <\/span>except
          \nslight changes made by two other great grammarians, namely, Katyayana who wrote
          \nhis book called \u2018Vartika\u2019, and Patanjali who wrote his commentary on the
          \nAshtadhyayi called the \u2018Maha Bhashya\u2019. Except for the slight changes by these
          \ntwo subsequent grammarians, Sanskrit as it exists today is really Panini’s
          \nSanskrit or Classical Sanskrit.<\/p>\n

          What Panini did was that he studied
          \ncarefully the existing Sanskrit language in his time and then refined, purified
          \nand systematized it so as to make it a language of great logic, precision and
          \nelegance.<\/span> <\/span>
          \nThus Panini made Sanskrit a highly developed and powerful vehicle of expression
          \nin which scientific ideas could be expressed with great precision and
          \nclarity.<\/span> <\/span>
          \nThis language was made uniform all over India, so that scholars from North,
          \nSouth East and West could understand each other.<\/p>\n

          I am not going into the
          \ndetails about the Ashtadhyayi but I will give one small illustration in this
          \nconnection.<\/p>\n

          In the English language the alphabets from A to Z are not
          \narranged in any logical or rational manner. There is no reason why F is followed
          \nby G or why P is followed by Q, etc. The alphabets in English are all arranged
          \nhaphazardly and at random. On the other hand, Panini in his first fourteen
          \nSutras arranged alphabets in the Sanskrit language in a very scientific and
          \nlogical manner, after close observation of the sounds in human
          \nspeech.<\/p>\n

          Thus, for example the vowels, a, aa, i, ee, u, oo, ae, ai, o, ou
          \nare arranged according to the shape of the mouth when these sounds are emitted,
          \naz and aa, are pronounced from the throat, i and ee from the palate, o and oo
          \nfrom the lips, etc. In the same way the consonants have been arranged in a
          \nsequence on a scientific pattern. The (ka) varga (i.e. ka, kha, ga, gha, nga)
          \nare emitted from the throat, the (cha) varga from the palate, the ( ta ) varga
          \nfrom the roof of the mouth, the (ta ) varga from the teeth, and the (pa ) varga
          \nfrom the lips.<\/p>\n

          I venture to say that no language in the world has its
          \nalphabets arranged in such a rational and systematic manner. And when we see how
          \ndeeply our ancestors went in the seemingly simple matter of arranging the
          \nalphabets we can realize how deeply they went in more advanced
          \nmatters.<\/p>\n

          Panini’s Sanskrit is called Classical Sanskrit, as I have
          \nalready stated above, and it is in contrast with the earlier Vedic Sanskrit that
          \nis the language (or languages) in which the Vedas were
          \nwritten.<\/span> <\/span>I
          \nmay now be permitted another digression here to tell you about the meaning of
          \nthe word \u2018Veda\u2019, but that digression is again necessary to understand what
          \nPanini did.<\/p>\n

          The word Veda (also called `Shruti’) consists of four parts
          \n:-<\/span><\/span><\/b><\/div>\n

            \n
          1. Samhita
            \nor Mantra, which consists of the four books Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samveda and
            \nAtharvaveda. The word \u2018Samhita\u2019 means a collection, and Rigveda is a collection
            \nof hymns as already stated above. The principal Veda is the Rigveda, and it is
            \nwritten in poetic verses called \u2018richas\u2019. The Samveda is really Rigveda set to
            \nmusic, while about 2\/3rd of the Richas (poems) of Yajurveda are taken from the
            \nRigveda. Some people regard the Atharvaveda as a later addition to the Samhitas,
            \nwhich were earlier known as \u2018trayi vidya\u2019 consisting of the Rigveda, Yajurveda
            \nand Samveda.<\/b><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
            \n
            <\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
              \n
            1. The
              \nBrahmanas, which are books written in prose in which the method of performing
              \nthe various yagyas is given. Each Brahmana is attached to some Samhita. Thus
              \nattached to the Rigveda is the Aitareya Brahmana and the Kaushiteki Brahmana,
              \nattached to the Samveda is the Tandya Brahmana and some other Brahmanas,
              \nattached to the white (shukla) Yajurveda is the Shatapatha Brahmana and some
              \nother Brahmanas, attached to the black (Krishna) Yajurveda is the Taitareya
              \nBrahmana and some other Brahmana, attached to the Atharvaveda is the Gopath
              \nBrahmana. As stated above, these Brahmana are written in prose, unlike the
              \nSamhitas which are mainly in poetry, and they prescribe the rules for performing
              \nthe various yagyas.<\/b><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
              \n
              <\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
                \n
              1. The
                \nAranyaks, which are forest books.<\/span> <\/span> These
                \ncontain the germs of philosophical thought, though in undeveloped
                \nform.<\/span><\/span><\/b><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                \n
                <\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
                  \n
                1. The
                  \nUpanishads which incorporated developed philosophical ideas.<\/b><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                  \nThe
                  \nabove four, namely, the Samhitas, the Brahmanas, the Aranyaks, and the
                  \nUpanishads collectively are known as Veda or Shruti.<\/p>\n

                  The Brahmanas were
                  \nwritten subsequent to the Samhitas, and their language is somewhat different
                  \nfrom that of the Samhitas, obviously because the Sanskrit language had changed
                  \nby the time they were written.<\/span> <\/span>
                  \nSimilarly, the Aranyaks were written subsequent to the Brahmanas, and,
                  \nthe<\/span> <\/span>
                  \nSanskrit of the Aranyaks is slightly different from that of the Brahmanas. The
                  \nlast part of the Veda is the <\/span> <\/span>Upanishads,
                  \nand the language of the Upanishads is different from that of earlier Vedic works
                  \nfor the reason that the Sanskrit language kept changing over the centuries, as
                  \nalready stated above. The Sanskrit of the Upanishads is closest to Panini’s
                  \nSanskrit.<\/p>\n

                  After Panini wrote his Ashtadhyayi the entire non-Vedic
                  \nSanskrit literature was written in accordance with Panini’s grammar, and even
                  \nthat part of the non-Vedic Sanskrit literature which existed before Panini was
                  \naltered and made in accordance with <\/span> <\/span>Panini’s
                  \ngrammar (except some words called apashabdas).<\/p>\n

                  The Vedic literature is
                  \nonly about 1% of the entire Sanskrit literature. About 99% of Sanskrit
                  \nliterature is non vedic Sanskrit literature. For instance, the Ramayana, the
                  \nMahabharata, the Puranas, the works of Kalidas, etc. are no doubt highly
                  \nrespected but they are not part of the Vedic literature and hence they are now
                  \nalmost all existing in accordance with Panini’s grammar.<\/p>\n

                  To illustrate,
                  \nsome parts of the Mahabharata were written before Panini because Panini has
                  \nreferred to the Mahabharat in his Ashtadhyayi.<\/span> <\/span>
                  \nEven such parts of the <\/span> <\/span>Mahabharata
                  \nwere altered and made in accordance with Panini\u2019s grammar. Thus today all of the
                  \nSanskrit non-Vedic literature is in accordance with Panini’s grammar, except a
                  \nfew words and expressions, called Apashabdas or apabhramshas (as Patanjali has
                  \ndescribed them) which for some reason could not be fitted into Panini\u2019s system,
                  \nand hence have been left as they were.<\/p>\n

                  However, it was not permissible to
                  \nchange the language of the Rigveda and make it in accordance with Panini’s
                  \ngrammar. Panini or no Panini, one could not touch the Rigveda, because it was
                  \nheld to be so sacred that it was not permitted to change its language. In fact
                  \nafter having been initially composed may be around 2000 B.C. the Rigveda was
                  \nthereafter never written and it continued from generation to generation by oral
                  \ntradition from Guru to Shishya.<\/p>\n

                  Thus the Vedic literature is not in
                  \naccordance with the Panini’s grammar. However, the non-Vedic Sanskrit literature
                  \n(which is 99% of the entire Sanskrit literature) is almost all in accordance
                  \nwith <\/span> <\/span>Panini’s
                  \ngrammar, including all the great scientific works. This provided for uniformity
                  \nand it systematized the language so that scholars could <\/span> <\/span>easily
                  \nexpress and communicate their ideas with great precision. This was a necessary
                  \nrequirement for the development of science.<\/p>\n

                  The spoken language no doubt
                  \nis very useful, but the spoken dialects change every 50 or 100 kilometers, and
                  \nhence there is no uniformity in them. A written language like Classical Sanskrit
                  \nin which scholars could express and communicate ideas to other scholars living
                  \nfar away with great precision and clarity was thus absolutely necessary for the
                  \ndevelopment of science, and this is the great achievement of Panini.<\/p>\n

                  As
                  \nregards the second factor contributing to the development of science in ancient
                  \nIndia, namely, scientific philosophy I would now like to tell you something
                  \nabout Indian philosophy.<\/span> <\/span>
                  \nHence I am making another digression.<\/p>\n

                  The generally accepted view is that
                  \nthere are six systems of Classical (orthodox) Indian philosophy (Shat Dharshana)
                  \nand three non classical (unorthodox) systems. The six classical (orthodox)
                  \nsystems are Nyaya, Vaisheshik, Sankya, Yoga, Purva Mimansa and Uttar Mimansa
                  \n(also known as Vedanta).<\/span> <\/span>
                  \nThe non classical (unorthodox) systems are Buddhism, Jainism and
                  \nCharvak.<\/p>\n

                  The Shatdarshanas are given below, with a brief mention of their
                  \nviewpoints.<\/p>\n

                  Shatdarshana or six classical (orthodox) schools of
                  \nIndian philosophy<\/u><\/span><\/span><\/b><\/div>\n

                    \n
                  1. Nyaya –
                    \npresents the scientific outlook .<\/span> <\/span> It
                    \ninsists that nothing is acceptable unless it is in accordance with reason and
                    \nexperience.<\/span> <\/span> It was
                    \nsubsequently distorted by the later Nyayiks.<\/span><\/span><\/b><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                    \n
                    <\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
                      \n
                    1. Vaisheshik
                      \n– presents the atomic theory.<\/b><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                      \n
                      <\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
                        \n
                      1. Sankhya –
                        \nProbably presents the materialist ontology of the Nyaya Vaisheshik system.
                        \nHowever, very little of the original literature on Sankhya has survived, and
                        \nthere is some controversy about its basic principles, some saying that it is
                        \ndualistic and not monistic because it has two entities, purush and prakriti, in
                        \nit.<\/b><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                        \n
                        <\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
                          \n
                        1. Yoga –
                          \npresents a method of physical and mental discipline<\/b><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                          \n
                          <\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
                            \n
                          1. Purva
                            \nmimansa (or briefly mimansa) – lays emphasis on the performance of the yagya for
                            \nattaining various spiritual and worldly benefits.<\/span> <\/span> Hence
                            \nrelies on the Brahmana part of the Vedas.<\/span><\/span><\/b><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                            \n
                            <\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
                              \n
                            1. Uttar
                              \nMimansa (or Vedanta) \u2013 lays emphasis on brahmagyan, hence relies on the
                              \nUpanishad part of the Vedas.<\/b><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                              \nIt
                              \nis said that the classical and non-classical system of philosophy differ in that
                              \nthe former accept the authority of the Vedas while the latter do not. However
                              \nthis does not seem to be correct as a close examination shows that the first 4
                              \nclassical systems do not really accept the authority of the Vedas (though some
                              \nof them pay lip service to it).<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nIt is the last two, the Purva Mimansa and the Uttar Mimansa, which certainly
                              \nrely on the Veda.<\/p>\n

                              I need not dilate on all these systems and it is only
                              \nnecessary to mention about the Nyaya and Vaisheshik systems, which represent the
                              \nscientific outlook. Nyaya philosophy states that<\/span> <\/span>nothing
                              \nis acceptable unless it is in accordance with reason and
                              \nexperience,<\/span><\/u> <\/span>and
                              \nthis is precisely the scientific approach (see in this connection D.P.
                              \nChattopadhyaya\u2019s \u2018What is Living and What is Dead in Indian Philosophy\u2019 which is
                              \na seminal work on Indian Philosophy). Vaisheshik is the atomic (parmanu) theory,
                              \nwhich was the physics of ancient India. Originally Nyaya and Vaisheshik were
                              \nregarded as one system, but since physics is the most fundamental of all
                              \nsciences, the Vaisheshik system was later separated from Nyaya and made as a
                              \nseparate system of philosophy.<\/p>\n

                              It may be added here that the Sankhya
                              \nsystem is perhaps older than the Nyaya Vaisheshik systems but very little
                              \nliterature on it has survived (the Sankhya Karika and Sankhya Sutras and
                              \ncommentaries on them).<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nHowever, the Sankhya philosophy certainly seems to have given the materialist
                              \nontological foundation on which the later Nyaya-Vaisheshik scientific philosophy
                              \nwas built, and hence we can broadly call the Indian philosophy representing the
                              \nscientific approach as the Sankhya-Nyaya-Vaisheshik system. However, in brief we
                              \nare calling it the Nyaya-Vaisheshik system, since we know much more about Nyaya
                              \nand Vaisheshik then we know about Sankhya.<\/p>\n

                              The Nyaya Vaisheshik system is
                              \n(i) realist, and (2) pluralistic.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nThis is in contrast to Advaita Vedanta of Shankaracharya which is monastic and
                              \nregards the world as illusion or maya in the ultimate analysis.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nThe word <\/span>\u2018<\/span>pluralistic<\/span>\u2019<\/span>
                              \nis in contrast to the word <\/span>\u2018<\/span>monistic<\/span>\u2019<\/span>.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nThe word <\/span>\u2018<\/span>monistic<\/span>\u2019<\/span>
                              \nmeans that there is only one entity in the world.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nShankaracharya<\/span>\u2019<\/span>s<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nAdvaita philosophy says that there is only one entity in the world i.e. Brahman
                              \nwhereas the various objects like table, glass, pen, room etc. are not different
                              \nfrom each other, and their difference is only an illusion.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nOn the other hand, the Nyaya Vaisheshik systems says that there are several real
                              \nentities and the world comprises of not just one entity, but a large number of
                              \nentities which are different e.g. table, book, room, human bodies
                              \netc.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nHence the Nyaya philosophy is pluralistic and not monistic.<\/p>\n

                              In this
                              \nconnection it is important to again digress a bit and<\/span> <\/span>
                              \ntell you something about philosophy.<\/p>\n

                              The two most important branches of
                              \nphilosophy are ontology and epistemology. Ontology is the study of
                              \nexistence.<\/span>  <\/span>
                              \nIn other words, in ontology the questions asked are what really exists? Does God
                              \nexist? Does the world exist or is it illusion (maya)?<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nWhat is real, and what is only apparently real?<\/span> <\/span>Epistemology
                              \nis the study of the means of valid knowledge. For instance, how do I know that
                              \nthis object in front of me exists? The answer is that it is Pratyaksha? I can
                              \nsee it with my eyes Pratyaksha is the knowledge which we derive from the five
                              \nsenses, and pratyaksha pramana is regarded as the pradhan pramana or the most
                              \nbasic of all the means of valid knowledge.<\/p>\n

                              However, there are other
                              \npramanas e.g. anuman (inference), shabda (statement of some expert or
                              \nauthoritative persons) etc.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nThus, much of scientific knowledge comes from anuman pramana.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nFor instance, Rutherford never saw an atom with his eyes, but by studying the
                              \nscattering of alpha rays (which are positively charged helium ions) he used
                              \nanuman praman (inference) to deduce that there was a positively charged nucleus
                              \naround which negatively charged electrons were orbiting. Similarly, black holes
                              \ncan not be know by pratyaksha pramana (since light cannot escape from them), but
                              \nwe can infer their existence by the movement of some nearby heavenly bodies on
                              \nwhich an invisible body (the black hole) is exercising a gravitational
                              \npull.<\/span>  <\/span><\/p>\n

                              The
                              \nthird Pramana in the epistemology of the Nyaya system is Shabda Pramana, which
                              \nis the statement of an expert or a person having great reputation in a
                              \nparticular field.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nWe often accept such statements to be correct, even though we may not understand
                              \nthe proof, because the person making it has a reputation of an
                              \nexpert.<\/p>\n

                              For instance, we accept that e=mc2 as Shabda pramana since
                              \nEinstein has a great reputation as a theoretical physicist, although we
                              \nourselves may be unable to understand how he reached that equation (as that will
                              \nrequire a knowledge of higher mathematics and physics which we may not
                              \npossess).<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nSimilarly, we accept what our doctor tells us about our ailment, as he is an
                              \nexpert.<\/p>\n

                              There is another pramana called upama (analogy) in the Nyaya
                              \nsystem, but we need not go into it here.<\/p>\n

                              As already stated above, the
                              \nNyaya Philosophy represents the scientific outlook, and it places great emphasis
                              \non the pratyaksha pramana (though this too may sometimes be deceptive e.g. a
                              \nmirage).<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nThis is also the approach of science because in science we largely rely on
                              \nobservation, experiment and logical inferences.<\/p>\n

                              It may be mentioned that
                              \nPratyaksha pramana may not necessarily lead to truthful knowledge in all cases.
                              \nFor instance, we see the sun rising from the east in the morning, going up above
                              \nus in the mid-day, and setting in the west.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nIf we rely only on Pratyaksha Pramana we would conclude that the sun goes around
                              \nthe earth.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nHowever the great mathematician and astronomer Aryabhata in his book Arybhatiya
                              \nwrote that the same visual impression will be created if we assume that the
                              \nearth is spinning on its axis.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nIn other words, if the earth is rotating on its axis it will appear that the sun
                              \nrises form the east and sets in the west.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nHence along with Pratyaksha Pramana we have also to apply reason, as observation
                              \nalone may not always lead to truthful knowledge.<\/p>\n

                              It may be mentioned that
                              \nthe Nyaya philosophy developed logic to an extent even beyond what Aristotle and
                              \nother Greek thinkers did (see D.P. Chattopadhyaya\u2019s books in this connection),
                              \nand logical thinking is necessary for science.<\/span>  <\/span>
                              Thus
                              \nthe Nyaya philosophy gave great support and encouragement to science in ancient
                              \nIndia. It must be mentioned that the Nyaya philosophy is one of the Shat
                              \nDarshanas i.e. one of the six orthodox systems in Indian philosophy, and not an
                              \nunorthodox system like the Charvaks. <\/span> <\/span>Hence
                              \nour great scientists could not be persecuted by the orthodox people since they
                              \ncould say that they were relying on an orthodox philosophy, namely, the Nyaya.
                              \nThis was unlike in Europe where some of the greatest scientists like Galileo
                              \nwere persecuted by the Church for preaching ideas inconsistent with the
                              \nBible.<\/p>\n

                              In ancient India there were everywhere debates or Shashtrarthas
                              \nwhich permitted free discussion of ideas, criticism of one\u2019s opponent, and free
                              \ndissent in the presence of a large<\/span> <\/span>
                              \ngathering.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nSuch freedom of thought and expression led to great development of science,
                              \nsince science also requires freedom, freedom to think, freedom to express
                              \none<\/span>\u2019<\/span>s
                              \nideas, and freedom to dissent.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nThe<\/span> <\/span>
                              \ngreat scientist Charak has mentioned in his book Charak samhita that debating
                              \nis<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nnecessary for the development of science, particularly debating with
                              \none<\/span>\u2019<\/span>s
                              \nmental equals.<\/p>\n

                              In the earliest Nyaya text,<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nwhich is the Nyaya Sutras of Gautam, several categories of debate are mentioned
                              \ne.g. vad, jalp, vitanda, etc<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nThese<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nwere further developed by the subsequent writers of Nyaya<\/p>\n

                              Having
                              \nexplained these two factors which gave great encouragement to the development
                              \nand progress of science we may now come to the specific subjects of science
                              \ndealt with by our ancient scientists.<\/p>\n

                              MATHEMATICS<\/u>
                              The
                              \ndecimal system was perhaps the most revolutionary and greatest scientific
                              \nachievement in the ancient world in mathematics. The numbers in the decimal
                              \nsystem were called Arabic numerals by the Europeans, but surprisingly the Arab
                              \nscholars called them Hindu numerals. Were they really Arabic or Hindu? In this
                              \nconnection it may be mentioned that the languages Urdu, Persian and Arabic are
                              \nwritten from right to left but if you ask any speaker of these languages to
                              \nwrite any number e.g. 257 he will write the number from left to right. This
                              \nshows that these numbers were taken from a language which was written from left
                              \nto right and not from right to left.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nIt is accepted now that these numbers came from India and they were copied by
                              \nthe Arabs from us.<\/p>\n

                              I would like to illustrate the revolutionary
                              \nsignificance of the decimal system. As we all know, ancient Rome was a great
                              \ncivilization, the civilization of Caesar and Augustus, but if one would have
                              \nasked an ancient Roman to write the number one million he would have almost gone
                              \ncrazy because to write one million he would have to write the letter M which
                              \nstands for millennium (or one thousand) <\/span> <\/span>one
                              \nthousand times. In the Roman numerals there is no single number greater than
                              \n<\/span> <\/span>M,
                              \nwhich stands for one thousand. To write 2000 we have to write MM, to write 3000
                              \nwe have to write MMM, and to write one million one has to write M one thousand
                              \ntimes.<\/p>\n

                              On the other hand, under our system to express one million we have
                              \njust to write the number one followed by six zeros.
                              In the Roman numerals
                              \nthere is no zero. Zero was an invention of ancient India and progress was not
                              \npossible without this invention.<\/p>\n

                              I am not going into details about the
                              \ngreat contributions of our great mathematicians like Aryabhatta, Brahamgupta,
                              \nBhaskar, Varahamihira etc. and you can read about it in the Google Website.
                              \nHowever, I may just give two simple illustrations in this connection.<\/p>\n

                              The
                              \nnumber 1,00,000 is called a lakh in the Indian numeral system.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \n100 lacs is called one crore, 100 crores is called one arab, 100 arabs is called
                              \none kharab, 100 kharabs is called one neel, 100 neels is called one padma, 100
                              \npadmas is called one shankh, 100 shankh is called one mahashankh, etc. Thus one
                              \nmahashankh will be the number 1 <\/span> <\/span>followed
                              \nby 19 zeros (for further details you may see V.S. Apte’s Sanskrit English
                              \nDictionary in Google). On the other hand the ancient Romans could not express
                              \nany number larger than one thousand except by repeating M and the other numerals
                              \nagain and again.<\/p>\n

                              Take another illustration.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nAccording to the Agni Purana, the Kaliyuga in which we are living consists of 4,
                              \n32, 000 years. The preceding Yuga is known as the Dwapar Yug and is twice as
                              \nlong as the Kaliyuga.<\/span>  <\/span>
                              \nPreceding the Dwapar Yug, is the Treta Yug which is thrice the duration of the
                              \nKaliyuga. The Yuga preceding Treta Yug is the Satyug which was said to be four
                              \ntimes longer than the Kaliyuga. One Kaliyuga, one Dwapar Yug, one Treta Yug and
                              \none Satyug are collectively known as one Chaturyugi (or 43 lacs 20 thousand
                              \nyears). Fifty Six Chaturyugis are known as one Manovantar. Fourteen Manovantars
                              \nis known as one Kalpa. <\/span> <\/span>Twelve
                              \nKalpas make one day of Brahma.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nBrahma is believed to have lived for billions or trillions of years.<\/p>\n

                              When
                              \nour people do the sankalp, which is to be done everyday by orthodox people, they
                              \nhave to mention the exact day, month and year of the Kaliyug as well as the
                              \nChaturyugi, Manovantar and kalpa in which we are living.<\/span>  <\/span>
                              \nIt is said that we are living today in the 28th Chaturyugi in our present
                              \nManovantar, that is to say half the Manovantar of our Kalpa is over, but the
                              \nremaining Manovantar is yet to be completed. <\/span> <\/span>We
                              \nare living presently<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nin the<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nVaivasvata Manuvantar.
                              One may or may not believe the above system, but one
                              \ncan only marvel at the flight of imagination of our ancestors who could conceive
                              \nof billions or trillions of years in history.<\/p>\n

                              Aryabhatta in his famous
                              \nbook called the Aryabhatiya wrote about algebra, arithmetic, trigonometry,
                              \nquadratic equations and the sine table. He calculated the value of Pi at 3.1416,
                              \nwhich is close to the actual value which is about 3.14159. Aryabhatta’s works
                              \nwere later adopted by the Greeks and then the Arabs.<\/p>\n

                              I am not going into
                              \nthe contribution of the other mathematicians e.g. Brahmagupta, Bhaskar,
                              \nVarahamihira etc. as that will take too much
                              \ntime.<\/p>\n

                              ASTRONOMY<\/u>
                              In ancient India, Aryabhata in his book
                              \nAryabhatiya presented a mathematical system that postulated that the earth
                              \nrotated on its axis.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nHe also considered the motion of the planets with respect to the sun (in other
                              \nwords there was a hint in Aryabhat\u2019s system of the heliocentric theory of
                              \nCopernicus, though there is a debate about it).<\/span>  <\/span>
                              \nThe other famous astronomers of that time were Brahma Gupta who
                              \nheaded<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nthe astronomical observatory at Ujjain and wrote a famous text on astronomy, and
                              \nBhaskara, who also was a head of the astronomical observatory at
                              \nUjjain.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nVarahamihira presented a theory of gravitation which suggested that there is a
                              \nforce due to which bodies stuck to the earth, and also kept the heavenly bodies
                              \nin their determined places.<\/p>\n

                              I am not going into detail into these
                              \ntheories of these great astronomers, but I would certainly like to say that it
                              \nis remarkable that even today predictions can be made about the time and date of
                              \nsolar and lunar eclipses on the basis of calculations made by the ancient
                              \nastronomers thousands of years ago, and that too at a time when there were no
                              \nmodern instruments like telescopes etc. and observations had to be made with the
                              \nnaked eye.<\/p>\n

                              MEDICINE<\/u>
                              The names of Sushruta and Charaka
                              \nare the most famous in ancient Indian medicine.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nSushruta is regarded as the father of Indian surgery and he invented cataract
                              \nsurgery, plastic surgery etc.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nmany centuries before it was invented by the westerners.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nIn his book Sushruta Samhita he has mentioned in great detail about the
                              \nmedicines and surgeries, including dozens of instruments used in surgeries,
                              \ndetails of which can be seen on the internet in Google.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nSushrut said that to be a good surgeon one has to have a good knowledge of
                              \nanatomy.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nCharaka Samhita is<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nan ancient Indian ayurvedic text<\/span> <\/span>
                              \non internal medicine written by Charaka and it is central to the modern day
                              \npractice of ayurvedic medicine.<\/span>  <\/span>
                              \nBoth Sushruta Samhita and Charak Samhita were written in Sanskrit, details of
                              \nwhich also can be seen in the internet in Google.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nIn this connection it may be mentioned that in the London Science Museum in one
                              \nfloor relating to medicine, there is mention of the various achievements in
                              \nmedicine in ancient India including the surgical instruments used by
                              \nSushruta.<\/p>\n

                              It is thus evident that India was far ahead of all countries in
                              \nmedicine in ancient times.<\/p>\n

                              ENGINEERING<\/u>
                              In Engineering,
                              \ntoo, we had made great progress as is evident from the great South Indian
                              \ntemples in Tanjore, Trichy, Madurai, etc. as also the temples in Khajuraho,
                              \nOrissa, etc. It is said that there was an institute in Aihole in Karnatka in the
                              \n6th Century A.D. which developed structural mechanics.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nThe principles developed by this institute e.g. sloped roofs were applied to
                              \nstructures built in Kerala,<\/span> <\/span>
                              \neastern Andhra Pradesh and Tamilnadu.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

                              I
                              \nmay now make another digression, but that too will be relevant to the topic
                              \nunder discussion.<\/p>\n

                              The attitude of the British Rulers towards Indian
                              \nCulture<\/u>
                              The attitude of the British rulers towards Indian culture
                              \npassed through three historical phases.<\/span> <\/span>
                              The
                              \nfirst phase was from about 1600 AD when the British came to India and
                              \nestablished their settlements in Bombay, Madras and Calcutta as traders upto
                              \n1757 when the Battle of Plassey was fought.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nDuring that period<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nthe attitude of the British was totally indifferent towards Indian culture
                              \nbecause they had come here as merchants to make money and they were not
                              \ninterested in Indian culture at all.<\/p>\n

                              The second phase was from 1757 to
                              \n1857 AD i.e. upto the Sepoy mutiny.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nIn 1757 the Battle of Plassey was fought after which the Diwani of Bengal was
                              \ngranted to the British by the Mughal emperor.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nThis transformed the Britishers from merchants to rulers, after which the entire
                              \nprovince of Bengal (which included Bihar and Orissa) came under their
                              \nrule.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nA ruler has to know about his subjects in order to properly administer their
                              \nterritory.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nHence, from 1757 to 1857, the Britishers carefully studied Indian culture and
                              \nmade some important contributions, particularly with respect to spread of
                              \nknowledge of Indian culture to the West.<\/p>\n

                              The third phase begins with the
                              \nIndian mutiny of 1857 and its suppression by the British rulers.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nAfter 1857, the British were determined that there should not be any such
                              \noutbreak against their rule.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nFor this purpose they did two things (a) they increased their army in India and
                              \nparticularly the number of Europeans in the Indian Army, and also placed the
                              \nartillery completely in the hands of Europeans artillery and (b) they started a
                              \npolicy of deliberately demoralizing the India people by spreading the propaganda
                              \nthat Indians were only a race of fools and savages before the British came into
                              \nIndia and there was nothing worthwhile in Indian culture <\/span> <\/span>as
                              \nit was the culture of fools and savages.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nThis was deliberately done so that the Indian people may themselves start
                              \nbelieving that they were an inferior race and should gladly accept the
                              \nBritishers as their masters.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nIt is because of the third phase that we had forgotten the great achievements of
                              \nour ancestors, including their achievements in science.<\/p>\n

                              It is the second
                              \nphase mentioned above which is of particular interest, because it is in this
                              \nperiod that the British carefully studied Indian culture.<\/p>\n

                              Among such
                              \nBritishers, the foremost was Sir William Jones who came to India in 1783 as a
                              \nJudge of the Supreme Court of Calcutta.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nSir William Jones was born in 1746 and he was a child prodigy who had mastered
                              \nseveral languages such as Greek, Latin, Persian, Arabic, Hebrew etc. at a very
                              \nyoung age.<\/span>  <\/span>
                              \nHe had studied at Oxford University and had also passed his Bar examination to
                              \nqualify as a lawyer.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nWhen he came to India he was told that there was an ancient Indian language
                              \ncalled <\/span>\u2018<\/span>Sanskrit\u2019
                              \nand this aroused his curiosity and he became determined to study it.
                              \nConsequently, he enquired and found a good teacher called Ram Lochan Kavi
                              \nBhushan \u2013 a poor Bengalee Brahman who lived in a dark and dingy room in a
                              \ncrowded locality in Calcutta.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nSir William Jones started going to this person to learn Sanskrit.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nHe has written in his memoirs that when the daily lesson was completed he would
                              \nglance behind and saw the Bengalee Brahmin washing the floor where Sir William
                              \nJones sat to learn his lessons as he was regarded as a Mleccha.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nHowever, Sir William Jones was not insulted by this as he was a scholar and
                              \nhence thought that one should accept the customs of the teacher.<\/span>   <\/span><\/span><\/b>
                              \n
                              <\/span>Having
                              \nmastered the Sanskrit language, Sir William Jones established the Asiatic
                              \nSociety in Calcutta and also translated many of the great Sanskrit works e.g.
                              \nAbhigyan Shakuntalam into English.<\/span><\/span> <\/span>
                              \nThis work was brought to the notice of the great German scholar Goethe who
                              \ngreatly praised it.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nSir William proved that<\/span>  <\/span>
                              \nSanskrit was very close to Greek and Latin.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nIn fact, it was closer to Greek than to Latin because Sanskrit has three numbers
                              \n<\/span>\u2013<\/span>
                              \nsingular, dual and plural as is the case with Greek, whereas Latin has only two
                              \nnumbers <\/span>\u2013<\/span>
                              \nsingular and plural, like in English, Hindi and many other
                              \nlanguages.<\/p>\n

                              Thus, Sir William Jones established that Sanskrit, Greek and
                              \nLatin were all descended from a common ancestor and he was the creator of modern
                              \ncomparative philology.<\/p>\n

                              There were several other British scholars who did
                              \nresearch in Indian culture, particularly during the second historical phase
                              \nmentioned above, but it is not necessary to go into detail about it as it will
                              \ntake too much time.<\/p>\n

                              Suffice it to say that these scholars were
                              \nwonderstruck about the great achievements of Indian scholars whose works were
                              \nall written in the Sanskrit language.<\/p>\n

                              Condition of Science in
                              \nModern India<\/u>I have stated above, at one time India was leading the
                              \nworld in science.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nScholars from Arabia and China would come to India to learn from us in our great
                              \nuniversities at Taxila, Nalanda, Ujjain etc. as our disciples. However, it must
                              \nbe regrettably stated that today we are lagging far behind the West in modern
                              \nscience. We have no doubt produced great scientists & mathematicians like CV
                              \nRaman, Chandrasekhar, Ramanujan, S.N. Bose, J.C. Bose, Meghnad Saha etc., but
                              \nthese belong to the past.<\/p>\n

                              However, that is not because of any inherent
                              \ndefect in us, but because of certain historical reasons. In fact, much of
                              \nSilicon Valley in California is today manned by the Indian scientists,
                              \nparticularly in information technology. In most of the science and mathematical
                              \nfaculties in American Universities there are a large number of Indian
                              \nprofessors.<\/span> <\/span>
                              \nHence, it is not due to any inherent inferiority that India has not progressed
                              \nas much as Westerners in science in modern times, but due to certain other
                              \nreasons. We have a powerful scientific heritage and knowledge of it would give
                              \nus the moral courage and strength once again to come in the forefront of science
                              \nin the modern world.<\/p>\n

                              A question which arises is why did we later fall
                              \nbehind the West in science when we were earlier far ahead. This is also known as
                              \nNeedhams\u2019s question. Professor Needham of England was a brilliant bio-chemist
                              \nwho later studied Chinese culture and wrote books on the history of science in
                              \nChina in several volumes. In one of these volumes he has raised the question why
                              \nChina which was at one time ahead of the West in science, having made great
                              \ndiscoveries like gun-powder, printing, paper etc., later fell behind and did not
                              \nhave an industrial revolution. The same question is to be raised for India
                              \ntoo.<\/p>\n

                              To my mind the answer to this question is that necessity is the
                              \nmother of invention. We had reached a certain level of scientific development,
                              \nbut after that, it was not necessary for survival for us to develop further. On
                              \nthe other hand, the geographical factor in Europe compelled the Europeans for
                              \nsheer survival to move ahead in science. The Europeans who were at one time
                              \nlagging behind India (which was ahead in the fundamental sciences) and China
                              \n(which was ahead in the applied sciences) learnt these sciences and then for
                              \nsurvival had to make further progress.<\/p>\n

                              In India we have a relatively
                              \ntemperate climate and there is not only a summer crop (called Kharif crop) there
                              \nis also winter crop (called Rabi crop). On the other hand Europe has a cold and
                              \nharsh climate with the land covered by snow for 4 or 5 months in the year in
                              \nwhich there can be no winter crop. Hence for sheer survival the Europeans were
                              \ncompelled to progress further in Science as their population had increased.
                              \nPerhaps that is the reason why they moved ahead, while we remained behind. This,
                              \nhowever, is only my tentative view, and I welcome the views of others.<\/p>\n

                              To
                              \nsolve our massive problems today we must quickly catch up with the West in
                              \nscience. Only with the help of science we can abolish poverty, unemployment etc.
                              \nwhich are our major social problems today.<\/span><\/span><\/b><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

                              \n
                              <\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
                              \n
                              <\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
                              \n
                              <\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
                              \n
                              <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                              By : Justice Markandey Katju, Judge, Supreme Court of IndiaSpeech delivered on 13.10.2009 in the Indian Institute of Science Bangalore Friends, It is a great honour for me to be invited to speak in the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, which is renowned as one of the foremost scientific institutes in India, and which indeed … <\/p>\n

                              Continue reading “Sanskrit As A Language Of Science”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6324","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.eastrovedica.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6324","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.eastrovedica.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.eastrovedica.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.eastrovedica.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.eastrovedica.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6324"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.eastrovedica.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6324\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.eastrovedica.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6324"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.eastrovedica.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6324"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.eastrovedica.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6324"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}