Gandharv.com

Archive for the ‘Indian Culture’ Category

HISTORY OF THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES IN INDIA

In all early civilizations, the study of the physical sciences was neither formalized nor separated from other branches of knowledge. And at least initially, there were few conscious attempts to study the theory of science independently of the practical innovations and technologies that required some application of scientific principles. In most cases, technological discoveries took place without any knowledge of the underlying scientific principles, through hit and trial, and by experience. Sometimes there was a vague or approximate awareness of the science, but the predominant focus remained on the utilitarian aspects of the technique, on practical efficacy, as opposed to how and why something worked or didn’t work.

In India, the earliest applications of chemistry took place in the context of medicine, metallurgy, construction technology (such as manufacture of cement and paints) and in textile production and dyeing. But in the process of understanding chemical processes, there also emerged a concomitant interest in attempting to describe the basic elements of matter – what they were composed of, and how they interacted with each other to produce new substances. Natural phenomenon were studied in the context of tides, rainfall, appearance of the sun, the moon and stellar formations, changes in season, weather patterns and agriculture. (For instance, Vedic literature mentions the condensation of water vapour from seas and oceans due to evaporation (caused by the sun’s heat) and the subsequent formation of clouds and rain.) This naturally led to theories about physical processes and the forces of nature that are today studied as specific topics within the fields of chemistry and physics.

Philosophy and Physical Science

While it is hard to say which precedes which – theory or practice – clearly there is a dialectical relationship between both, and the neglect of either leads to the death of science. Religious beliefs, particularly religious taboos and irrational indoctrination towards mystical or magical phenomenon, or adherence to false superstitions can often pose as serious impediments to the advance of science, and play an important role in whether the why and the how of physical causes can be safely and usefully explored.

Societies that believed that only the “gods” knew the secrets of nature, and that it was futile for humans to attempt to unravel the mysteries of the universe were naturally incapable of making any substantial progress in the realm of the sciences. Even in societies where there were no formal religious taboos in understanding real-world phenomenon in a scientific way, the power and the influence of the priests could serve as an obstacle to scientific progress. For instance, in a society where ritual practices alone were considered sufficient in achieving desired goals, there would naturally be little scope for serious investigation into the properties and laws of nature.

While ancient India did not generally suffer from the first affliction (of religious opposition to science), it did suffer from the second (the proliferation of rituals and superstitions). The progress of science in India was thus inextricably linked to challenges to the domination of the priests, and resistance to the proliferation of rituals and sacrifices. It was necessary to at least argue that rituals alone were insufficient in producing desired results, and that some measure of rational observation of the world was necessary in shaping human destiny. It is therefore no accident that, by and large, developments in science and technology came in parallel with the advance of rational philosophy in India. .

In the earliest scientific texts such has those of the Vaisheshikas (6th C BC or possibly earlier), , there was a rudimentary attempt at recording the physical properties of different types of plants and natural substances. There was also an attempt at summarizing and classifying the observations made about natural phenomenon. Intuitive formulations and approximate theories about the composition of matter and physical behavior followed. Thus, although the earliest applications of physics and chemistry in India (as in other ancient societies), took place without involving much theoretical knowledge or insight into these branches of science, there were elements of basic scientific investigation and scientific documentation in these early rational treatises. Primitive and tentative as these steps were, they were nevertheless crucial to humanity reaching it’s present stage of knowledge in the fields of physics, chemistry, botany, biology and other physical sciences.

Particle Physics

Although particle physics is one of the most advanced and most complicated branches of modern physics, the earliest atomic theories are at least 2500 years old. In India, virtually every rational school of philosophy (whether Hindu, Buddhist or Jain -  had something to say on the nature of elementary particles, and various schools of thought promoted the idea that matter was composed of atoms that were indivisible and indestructible. Later philosophers further elaborated on this notion by positing that atoms could not only combine in pairs (dyads) but also in threes (triads) – and that the juxtaposition of dyads and triads determined the different physical properties of substances seen in nature. The Jains also postulated that the combinations of atoms required specific properties in the combining atoms, and also a separate “catalyst” atom. In this way, the earlier atomic theories became converted into a molecular theory of matter. While many details of these theories no longer stand the test of scientific validity, there was much in these formulations that was conceptually quite advanced and sophisticated for it’s time.

{Although it may be just a coincidence, but the development of the Jain molecular theory appears to parallel practical developments in other fields such as medicine or metallurgy where the vital role of catalysts had been observed and carefully documented. Indian medical texts had postulated that proper human digestion and the successful absorption of medicinal pills and potions also required the presence of “catalytic” substances. The requirement of catalytic substances relating to the manufacture of acids and alkalis (relevant to medicinal and surgical applications) had also been documented, as had the role of suitable catalysts in metallurgical processes, and in the manufacture of color-fast dyes. (Today, much more is known about catalytic processes, as a variety of minerals, vitamins and enzymes have been identified as playing a key role (as catalysts) in a range of essential chemical processes that take place in our bodies, as do catalytic compounds in other physical processes).}

Atomic/molecular theories were also utilized in (albeit speculative) explanations of chemical changes caused by heat. Prasastapada proposed that the taijasa (heat) factor affected molecular groupings (vyuhas), thus causing chemical changes. Two competing theories attempted to provide a more detailed explanation of the process (as applied to the baking/coloring of a clay pot through firing): the Pilupakavada theory, as proposed by the Vaisesikas held that the application of heat (through fire, for instance) reduced the molecules of the earthen pot into atoms; and the continued application of heat caused the atoms to regroup creating new molecules and a different color. The Pitharapakavada theory offered by the Nyayikas (of the Nyaya school) disagreed, suggesting that the molecular changes/transformations took place without a breakdown of the original molecules into basic atoms, arguing that if that happened, there would also have to be a disintegration of the pot itself, which remained intact, but only changed color.

An intuitive understanding of kinetic energy appears in the texts of Prasastapada and the the Nyaya-Vaisesikas who believed that all atoms were in a state of constant activity. The concept of parispanda was propounded to describe such molecular/atomic motion, whether it be whirling, circling, or harmonic.

Optics and Sound

The earliest of the Indian rationalists also attempted to provide theories on the nature of light and sound. Like the ancient Greeks, the eye was assumed to be a source of light by the early Indian philosophers, and this error wasn’t corrected until the 1st C AD when Susruta posited that it was light arriving from an external source at the retina that illuminated the world around us. (This was reiterated by Aryabhatta in the 5th C). In other respects, the earlier philosophers were more on the mark, with Cakrapani suggesting that both sound and light traveled in waves, but that light traveled at a much higher speed. Others like the Mimamsakas imagined light to comprise of minute particles (now understood to be photons) in constant motion and spreading through radiation and diffusion from the original source.

The wave character of sound was elaborated on by Prastapada who hypothesized that sound was borne by air in increasing circles, similar to the movement of ripples in water. Sound was understood to have its own reflection – pratidhvani (echo). Musical pitches (sruti) were seen as caused by the magnitude and frequency of vibrations. A svara (tone) was believed to consist of a sruti (fundamental tone) and some anuranana (partial tones or harmonics). Musical theory was elaborated on the basis of concepts such as jativyaktyoriva tadatamyam (genus and species of svara), parinama (change of fundamental frequency), vyanjana (manifestation of overtones), vivartana (reflection of sound), and karyakaranabhava (cause and effect of the sound).

In the 6th C. Varahamihira discussed reflection as being caused by light particles arriving on an object and then back-scattering (kiranavighattana, murcchana). Vatsyayana referred to this phenomenon as rasmiparavartana, and the concept was adapted to explain the occurrence of shadows and the opacity of materials. Refraction was understood to be caused by the ability of light to penetrate inner spaces of translucent or transparent materials and Uddyotakara drew a comparison with fluids moving through porous objects – tatra parispandah tiryaggamanam parisravah pata iti.

(Al Haytham (b, Basra, worked in Cairo, 10th C) who may have been familiar with the writings of Aryabhatta, expounded a more advanced theory of optics using light rays, diagrammatically explaining the concepts of reflection and refraction. He is particularly known for elucidating the laws of refraction and articulating that refraction was caused by light rays traveling at different speeds in different materials.)

Astronomy and Physics

Just as the study of Mathematics in India received an impetus from the study of astronomy, so did the study of Physics. As mentioned in the essay on mathematics, Aryabhatta (5th-6th C) made pioneering discoveries in the realm of planetary motion. This led to advances in the definition of space and time measuring units and better comprehension of concepts such as gravitation, motion and velocity.

{For instance, Yativrasabha’s work Tiloyapannatti (6th C) gives various units for measuring distances and time and also describes a system of infinite time measures. More significantly, Vacaspati Misra (circa AD 840) anticipated solid (co-ordinate) geometry eight centuries before Descartes (AD 1644). In his Nyayasuchi-nibandha, he states that the position of a particle in space could be calculated by assuming it relative to another and measuring along three (imaginary) axes.

The study of astronomy also led to a great interest in quantifying very large and very small units of time and space. The solar day was considered to be made up of 1,944,000 ksana (units of time), according to the Nyaya-Vaisesikas. Each ksana thus correspnded to .044 seconds. The truti was defined as the smallest unit of time i.e. 2.9623*10-4. The Silpasastra records the smallest measure of length as the paramanu i.e. 1/349525 of an inch. This measurement corresponds to the smallest thickness of the Nyaya-Vaisesika school – the trasarenu, which was the size of the smallest mote visible on a sunbeam as it shone into a dark room. Varahamihira (circa AD sixth century) posited that 86 trasarenu were equal to one anguli i.e. three-fourths of an inch. He also suggested that 64 trasarenu were equal to the thickness of a hair.}

The Laws of Motion

Although the earliest attempts at classifying different types of motion were made by the Vaisesikas, Prasastapada took the study of the subject much further in the 7th C AD, and it appears from some of his definitions that at least some of the concepts he enunciated must have emerged from a study of planetary motion. In addition to linear motion, Prasastapada also described curvilinear motion (gamana), rotary motion (bhramana) and vibratory motion. He also differentiated motion that was initiated by some external action from that which took place as a result of gravity or fluidity.

He was also aware of motion that resulted from elasticity or momentum, or as an opposite reaction to an external force. He also noted that some types of actions result in like motion, and others in opposite motion, or no motion at all – the variations arising from the internal and inherent properties of the interacting objects.

Prasastapada also noted that at any given instance, a particle was capable of only a single motion (although a body such as a blowing leaf composed of multiple particles may experience a more complex pattern of motion due to different particles moving in different ways) – an important concept that was to facilitate in later quantifications of the laws of motion.

In the 10th C. Sridhara reiterated what had been observed by Prasastapada, and expanded on what he had documented. Bhaskaracharya (12th C), in his Siddhanta Siromani and Ganitadhyaya, took a crucial first step in quantification, and measured average velocity as v=s/t (where v is the average velocity, s is distance covered, and t is time).

For their time, Prasastapada’s work, and Sridhara and Bhaskaracharya’s later elaborations ought to be considered quite significant. However, one of the weaknesses of later Indian treatises was a failure to follow up with further attempts at quantification and conceptual elaboration. For instance, several types of motion had been earlier assigned to unseen causes. There was no subsequent attempts to solve these mysteries, nor was there the realization that the invisible cause behind various types of motion could be conceptually generalized and formally characterized and expressed in an abstract way, through a mathematical formula as was done by Newton a few centuries later.

Experimentation versus Intuition

In fact, the next major step in the study of motion was to take place in England, when the ground for scientific investigation was prepared by the likes of Roger Bacon (13th C) who described the great obstacles to learning as regard for authority, force of habit, theological prejudice and false concept of knowledge. A century later, Merton scholars at Oxford developed the concept of accelerated motion (an important precursor to the understanding that force=mass*acceleration) and took rudimentary but important steps in the measurement and quantification of heat in a rod. One of the hallmarks of British (and European) science thereafter was the fusion of theory and practice, unlike the generally intuitive approach followed by Indian scientists when investigating fields other than astronomy.

For instance, right up to the 16th C, Indian scientists continued to record useful scientific observations, but without serious attempts at quantification, or deeper investigation into the physical and chemical causes of what they observed. Magnetism is referred to by Bhoja (10th-11th C) as well as by Sankara Misra later. Udayana (10th-11th C) recognized solar heat as the heat-source of all chemical changes, and also that air had weight in a discussion of balloons in his Kiranawali. Vallabhacharya (13th C) in his Nyaya-lilavati pointed out the resistance of water to a sinking object, but did not go on to discuss the principle any further. Sankara Misra (15th-16th C) noted the phenomenon of electrostatic attraction after he had observed how grass and straw were attracted by amber. But the cause was deemed adrishta (unseen cause). He also recorded some awareness of the concept of kinetic energy and in his Upaskara dwelt on the properties of heat, and tried to relate the process of boiling to evaporation. In the same treatise, Sankara Misra also gave examples of capillary motion citing the ascent of sap from root to stem in a plant and the ability of liquids to penetrate porous vessels. He also wrote about surface tension, and posited sandrata (viscosity) as the cause behind the cohesion of water molecules and the smoothness of water itself.

The Social Milieu

Yet, unlike in astronomy, where many Indian scientists got very intensely involved, and were driven to work towards a considerable degree of accuracy, no such compulsions appeared to guide Indian scientists in other fields. Whereas Indian astronomers were compelled to develop useful mathematical formulae and explore the mysteries of the universe in greater depth – in other fields of scientific investigation, Indian scientists seemed to remain content with intuitive and general observations, tolerating a far greater degree of vagueness and imprecision. The answer to this apparent inconsistency may lie in the social milieu. The study of astronomy was triggered partly by practical considerations such as the need for accurate monsoon prediction and rainfall mapping, but perhaps even more so, by the growing demand for “good” astrologers. The obsession with astrological charts – both amongst the royalty and mercantile classes led to considerable state patronage of intellectuals who wished to pursue the study of astronomy. Patronage was also available for alchemists – for those attempting to discover the “elixir” of life. But support for modern scientific research as was beginning to take shape in 14th C Oxford was generally lacking.

The situation prevalent in 15th-16th C Italy was not significantly different, and Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519) was particularly frustrated that there was not sufficient interest in his many inventions and how those with means failed to distinguish genuine scientific activities from quackery and the work of charlatans. But Da Vinci was convinced that dedication to scientific truth would eventually prevail. “For nature, as it would seem, takes vengeance on such as would work miracles and they come to have less than other men who are more quiet. And those who wish to grow rich in a day shall live a long time in great poverty, as happens and will to all eternity happen to the alchemists, the would-be creators of gold and silver, and to the engineers who think to make dead water stir itself into life with perpetual motion, and to those supreme fools, the necromancer and the enchanter.”

Although Raja Bhoja’s Somarangana-sutradhara (circa AD 1100) describes many useful mechanical inventions, and the use of levers and pulleys is described in numerous other Urdu, Persian and Arabic texts in India and the Middle East, Da Vinci’s notes on mechanics, the study of levers of different kinds, cantilevers, pulleys and gears in combination, varied gadgetry, bridges, and studies of flight were of a truly pioneering nature, and exceeded in complexity and breadth any civil and mechanical engineering treatise that had preceded him.

And even though in his time, Da Vinci’s works were not especially appreciated, Western Europe was in the midst of a monumental change in it’s attitude towards science and technology. A century later, the momentum towards the modern scientific era was to gather considerable pace, and eventually the European Renaissance created an environment where the ideas of Da Vinci and Francis Bacon (15-16th C England – who stressed the importance of the experimental method in science) were able to blossom and flourish.

But at the same time in India, several factors posed as hindrances to the development of modern science. In comparison to Europe, India enjoyed a relatively milder climate, and the production of necessities was deemed sufficient to satisfy the population of the time. The courts – whether Mughal or regional spent a good part of their rich treasuries on cultivating the fine arts and promoting the manufacture of luxury goods and decorative objects of exquisite beauty. Science and technology simply attracted little attention (except when it came to improving the tools of war).

The growing influence of religion – whether Quranic or Brahminical also had it’s negative effect. While the Quran claimed that all the world’s knowledge was already described in it, Brahminical orthodoxy created a sharp divide between the mental and the physical and thus prevented scientists from going beyond passive observation and intuition to practical experimentation, active theorizing and quantification. Whereas Akbar and Jehangir were not averse to science, and the latter took an active interest in books on botany and zoology, it appears from anecdotal accounts that Aurangzeb had a decidedly skeptical attitude towards the sciences. Although some patronage was available in the regional courts, (and outside the courts), alchemy, astrology, study of omens, numerology and other semi-rational and irrational traditions drew much more attention, and thus distracted from genuine scientific pursuits.

On the other hand, European scientists drew on the best works produced in the East – studying foreign documents with due diligence, often accepting little at face value – but instead verifying the results with apparatus and scientific measuring tools of their own creation. There was a time when such had also been the case in ancient India – but over time (due to both internal and external factors) – India’s scientific spirit got eroded. Thus Europe was not only able to catch up with the knowledge of India and the East, it was able to rapidly surpass it.

Since independence, Indian scientists have been provided the opportunity of narrowing the gap, and in some fields have done especially well. However, the quality of science education for the masses still needs considerable improvement. On the one hand, the study of the physical sciences in India needs to be accompanied with practical demonstrations and more experimentation as is common practice in the West. In many instances, tools and apparatus used to demonstrate and quantify scientific phenomenon need to be modernized or improved. On the other hand, there also needs to be somewhat greater appreciation of the intuitive approach that has been the hallmark of ancient and medieval Indian science. The conceptual elegance of some earlier formulations, and the facility to inform and educate through analogy is also something that can be learned from the Indian tradition.

It may also be noted that in terms of pedagogy, the standard Western texts are not always as useful. Often, the teaching of physics and chemistry becomes too esoteric for the average student. There is excessive abstraction in most text books, and undue theoretical complexity is thrust upon relatively young students. In contrast, the Indian approach with it’s stress on observation of natural phenomenon, and epistemological approach to understanding each field are much easier to grasp for beginners and intermediate students. Once the student understands the basics, and develops a good intuitive way of perceiving scientific phenomenon – the complexities and mathematical abstractions can follow – and the world of the physical sciences can be opened up to more than just the few who are able to transcend the complexities and difficulties that accompany the study of these branches of science today.

DEVELOPMENT OF PHILOSOPHICAL THOUGHT AND SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN ANCIENT INDIA

Contrary to the popular perception that Indian civilization has been largely `concerned with the affairs of the spirit and “after-life”,  India’s historical record suggests that some of the greatest Indian minds were much more concerned with developing philosophical paradigms that were grounded in reality. The premise that Indian philosophy is founded solely on mysticism and renunciation emanates from a colonial and orientalist world view that seeks to obfuscate a rich tradition of scientific thought and analysis in India.

Much of the evidence for how India’s ancient logicians and scientists developed their theories lies buried in polemical texts that are not normally thought of as scientific texts. While some of the treatises on mathematics, logic, grammar, and medicine have survived as such – many philosophical texts enunciating a rational and scientific world view can  only be constructed from extended references found in philosophical texts and commentaries by Buddhist and Jain monks or Hindu scholars (usually Brahmins).

Although these documents are usually considered to lie within the domain of religious studies, it should be pointed out that many of these are in the form of extended polemics that are quite unlike the holy books of Christianity or Islam. These texts attempt to debate the value of the real-world versus the spiritual-world. They attempt to counter the theories of the atheists and other skeptics. But in their attempts to prove the primacy of a mystical soul or “Atman” – they often go to great lengths in describing competing rationalist and worldly philosophies  rooted in a more realistic and more scientific perception of the world. Their extensive commentaries illustrate the popular methods of debate, of developing a hypothesis, of extending and elaborating theory, of furnishing proofs and counter-proofs.

It is also important to note that originally, the Buddhist world view was an essentially atheistic world view. The ancient Jains were agnostics, and within the broad stream of Hinduism – there were several heterodox currents that asserted a predominantly atheistic view. In that sense, these were not religions as we think of today since the modern understanding of religion presumes faith or belief in a super-natural entity.

That so many scholars from each of these philosophical schools felt the imperative to prove their extra-worldly theories using rationalist tools of deductive and inductive logic suggests that faith in a super-natural being could not have been taken for granted. This is borne out by the memoirs of Hieun Tsang (the Chinese chronicler who traveled extensively in India during the 7th C. AD) who describes the merchants of  Benaras as being  mostly “unbelievers”!  He also wrote of intense polemics and debates amongst followers of different Buddhist sects.

Similiarly, there is other evidence that suggests that amongst the intellectuals of ancient India, atheism and skepticism must have been very powerful currents that required repeated and vigorous attempts at persuasion and change. Nevertheless, over centuries, the intellectual discords between the believers and non-believers became more and more muted. The advocates of mystic idealism prevailed over  the skeptics, so that eventually, (at the popular level) each of these philosophies functioned as traditional religions with their pantheon of gods and  goddesses enticing and lulling  most into an intellectual stupor. But at no point were the advocates of “pure faith” ever powerful enough to completely extinguish the rationalist current that had so imbued  Indian philosophy.

Early Rationalist Schools

One of the most ancient of India’s rationalist traditions is the “Lokayata”. Maligned and discredited by the evangelicals of mystical Buddhism and Vedantic Hinduism, their world view was sharply atheistic and scientific for their time. Unlike those who believed in reincarnation or an after-life, and in the indestructibility of the human soul – they refused to make artificial distinctions between body and mind. They saw the human mind as part and parcel of the human body – not as some separate entity that could have an independent existence from the human body. They acknowledged nothing but the material human body and the material universe around it. They rejected sacrificial gifts and offerings for the after-life as was common amongst followers of Brahmanical Hinduism during the time of Medhatithi in A.D 900 (a commentator on the writings of Manu who acknowledges that the Lokayatas were atheists or non-believers.)

For instance, they ridiculed the Brahmanical rituals of animal sacrifice: “If a beast slain in the Jyotistoma rite itself goes to heaven, Why then does not the sacrificer also offer his father?”

“If beings in heaven are gratified by our offerings made here, Then why not give the food down below to those who stand on the housetop?”

“If offerings produce gratification to beings who are dead, why make provisions for travellers when they start on a journey?”

“If he who departs from the body goes to another world, How is it that he comes not back again, restless for love of his kindred?”

The Lokayatas dismissed the Vedic priests and their Vedic mantras as nothing but a means of livelihood for those lacking in genuine physical or mental abilities. Instead, they gave primacy to human sense-perception, and through the application of the inferential process – they developed their theories of how the world worked.

One of the most notable aspects of the Lokayata belief system was their intuitive understanding of dialectics in nature. Many argued the mind-body separation as follows: Since the body is made up of things lacking consciousness – but the mind is a conscious entity – mind and body must necessarily be different – and consciousness must imply the existence of something else akin to the “soul”. The Lokayatas countered this by citing the example of fermentation – how an intoxicating drink could be produced from something that was not itself an intoxicant. In essence they had discovered the principle that the whole was greater than the sum of it’s parts. That physical and chemical processes could lead to dramatic changes in the properties of the substances combined. They were able to understand  how special transformations could produce new qualities that were not evident in the constituent elements of the newly-created entity.

As keen observers of nature, they were probably amongst the first to understand the nature of different plants and herbs and their utility to human well-being. As such, it is likely that Indian medicine gradually evolved from the early scientific knowledge and understanding of the Lokayatas. Since  the Lokayatas believed that consciousness emerged from the living human body, and ended with it’s death – it is more than likely that the widely prevalent Indian custom of cremating the dead also originated amongst them.

This is not to say that the Lokayatas’ understanding of the world was as elaborate and precise as that provided by today’s science.  By the standards of the 20th century, some of their formulations could be  considered primitive and  inadequate. That is only to be expected. Knowledge of science has expanded considerably since their times. But what is more important is that their world view was driven by a rational and scientific approach.

For instance, some later philosophical schools countered the Lokayata arguments concerning mind-body unity by bringing up the evidence of memory. Nyaya-Vaisesika philosophers like Jayanta and Udayana pointed out that the process of daily eating meant that the human body was constantly changing. The process of ageing also pointed to how the human body was ever-changing. Yet, an old person could remember in detail  an incident from childhood. In other words – they tried to argue that memory was evidence of a human soul that existed beyond the mere physical body. Yet, we know today that memory is but a combination of proteins that can survive the length of human existence. There is both continuity and change in nature. The Lokayata world view howsoever sketchy and incomplete was not in contradiction with modern science.

If some of their characterizations required later revisions or refinement, or even corrections, it didn’t take away from their fundamentally scientific approach. Their inadequacies  were a consequence of incomplete knowledge and the understandable inability to see all the complexities of nature that we are now able (through advanced scientific instruments and centuries of accumulated knowledge). Their errors did not, however, stem from stubborn faith or deliberate rejection of reality and real-world phenomenon.

In practice, (according to some historians) India’s ancient Tantric followers may have also had a largely  rational world view, which sprang from a practical  mindset and was impaired only by the limited amount of scientific knowledge available to humanity at that time.  Critics of the tantrics dismissed them as sexually obsessed hedonists. But they failed to acknowledge that the early tantrics had an intuitive scientific streak and their understanding of sexual reproduction is probably what may have also impelled them to develop basic agricultural tools and other implements. In that sense, they were India’s early technologists.

The Age of Science and Reason

But even amongst those Indian philosophers who accepted the separation of mind and body and argued for the existence of the soul, there was considerable dedication to the scientific method and to developing the principles of deductive and inductive logic.  From 1000 B.C to the 4th C A.D (also described as India’s rationalistic period) treatises in astronomy, mathematics, logic, medicine and  linguistics were produced. The philosophers of the Sankhya school, the Nyaya-Vaisesika schools and early Jain and Buddhist scholars made substantial contributions to the growth of science and learning. Advances in the  applied sciences like metallurgy, textile production and dyeing were also made.

In particular, the rational period produced some of the most fascinating series of debates on what constitutes the “scientific method”: How does one separate our sensory perceptions from dreams and hallucinations? When does an observation of reality become accepted as fact, and as scientific truth? How should the principles of inductive and deductive logic be developed and applied?  How does one evaluate a hypothesis for it’s scientific merit? What is a valid inference? What constitutes a scientific proof?

These and other questions were attacked with an unexpected intellectual vigour. As keen observers of nature and the human body, India’s early scientist/philosophers studied human sensory organs, analyzed dreams, memory and consciousness. The best of them understood dialectics in nature – they understood change, both in quantitative and qualitative terms -  they  even posited a proto-type of the modern atomic theory. It was this rational foundation that led to the flowering of Indian civilization.

This is borne out by the testaments of important Greek scientists and philosophers of that period. Pythagoras – the Greek mathematician and philosopher who lived in the 6th C B.C was familiar with the Upanishads and learnt his basic geometry from the Sulva Sutras. (The famous Pythagoras theorem is actually a restatement of a result already known and recorded by earlier Indian mathematicians). Later, Herodotus (father of Greek history) was to write that the Indians were the greatest nation of the age. Megasthenes – who travelled extensively through India in the 4th C. B.C also left extensive accounts that paint India in highly favorable light (for that period).

Intellectual contacts between ancient Greece and India were not insignificant. Scientific exchanges between Greece and India were mutually beneficial and helped in the development of the sciences in both nations. By the 6th C. A.D, with the help of ancient Greek and Indian texts, and through their own ingenuity, Indian astronomers made significant discoveries about planetary motion. An Indian astronomer – Aryabhata, was to become the first to describe the earth as a sphere that rotated on it’s own axis. He further postulated that it was the earth that rotated around the sun and correctly described how solar and lunar eclipses occurred.

Because astronomy required extremely complicated mathematical equations, ancient Indians also made significant advances in mathematics.  Differential equations – the basis of modern calculus were in all likelihood an Indian invention (something essential in modeling planetary motions). Indian mathematicians were also the first to invent the concept of abstract infinite numbers – numbers that can only be represented through abstract mathematical formulations such as infinite series – geometric or arithmetic. They also seemed to be familiar with polynomial equations (again essential in advanced astronomy)  and were the inventors of the modern numeral system (referred to as the Arabic numeral system in Europe).

The use of the decimal system and the concept of zero was essential in facilitating large astronomical calculation and allowed such 7th C mathematicians as Brahmagupta to estimate the earth’s circumferance at about 23,000 miles – (not too far off from the current calculation). It also enabled Indian astronomers to provide fairly accurate longitudes of important places in India.

The science of Ayurveda – (the ancient Indian system of healing) blossomed in this period. Medical  practitioners took up the dissection of corpses, practised surgery, developed popular nutritional guides, and wrote out codes for medical procedures and patient care and diagnosis. Chemical processes associated with the dying of textiles and extraction of metals were studied and documented. The use of mordants (in dyeing) and catalysts (in metal-extraction/purification) was discovered.

The scientific ethos also had it’s impact on the arts and literature. Painting and sculpture flourished even as there were advances in social infrastructure. Universities were set up with dormitories and meeting halls. In addition, according to the Chinese traveller, Hieun Tsang, roads were built with well-marked signposts. Shade trees were planted. Inns and hospitals dotted national highways so as to facilitate travel and trade.

India’s rational age was thus a period of tremendous intellectual ferment and vitality. It was a period of scientific discovery and technological innovation.  Accompanied by challenges to caste discrimination and rigidity and religious obscurantism – it was also a period of great social upheaval that eventually led to society becoming more democratic, allowing greater social interaction between members of different castes and  expanding opportunities for social mobility amongst the population.  Social ethics drew considerable attention in this period. Rules of engagement during war were constructed so as to eliminate non-military casualties and destruction of pasture-land, crop-land or orchards. The notion of chivalry in war was popularized – it meant not attacking fleeing or injured soldiers. It also required warring armies to provide safe passage to women, children, the elderly and other non-combatants.

The rational period thus saw progress on several fronts. Not only did it create an enduring foundation for India’s civilization to develop and mature  – it has also had it’s impact on the growth of other civilizations. In fact, India’s rational period served as a vital link in the long and varied chain of human progress.  Although colonial history  has attempted to usurp this collective heritage of the planet and make it exclusively euro-centric, it is important to note that fundamental  and important  discoveries in science and innovations in technology have come from many different parts of the globe, albeit at different times and stages of world civilization. India made significant contributions in this regard. If India is to fully recover from the depredations of colonial rule, it is imperative that we don’t forget the achievements of this inspiring epoch.

PHILOSOPHICAL DEVELOPMENT FROM UPANISHADIC METAPHYSICS TO SCIENTIFIC REALISM

Upanishadic philosophy: preparing the ground for rationalism

Although the Upanishadic texts (like some of the earlier Vedic texts) are primarily concerned with acquiring knowledge of the “soul”, “spirit” and “god” – there are aspects of Vedic and Upanishadic literature that also point to an intuitive understanding of nature and natural processes. In addition, many of the ideas are presented in a philosophical and exploratory manner – rather than as strict definitions of inviolable truth.

Although the Upanishadic texts goaded the Upanishadic student to concentrate on comprehending the inner spirit,  rational investigation of the world by other scholars was not entirely squelched, and eventually, the Upanishadic period gave way to an era which was not  inimical to the development of rational ideas, even encouraging scientific observation and advanced study in the fields of  logic, mathematics and the physical sciences.

Following an era when rituals and superstitions had begun to proliferate, in some ways the Upanishadic texts helped to clear the ground for greater rationalism in society. Brahmin orthodoxy and ideas of ritual purity were superseded by a spiritual perspective that eschewed sectarianism and could be practised universally, unfettered by an individual’s social standing. Much of the emphasis was on discovering “spiritual truths” for oneself as opposed to mechanically accepting the testimony of established religious leaders. Although there is a thematic commonality to the Upanishadic discourses, different  commentators offered subtly varying  perspectives and insights.

The concept of god in Upanishadic (and even earlier Vedic) thinking was quite different from the more common definition of god as creator and dispenser of reward and punishment. The Upanishadic concept of god was more abstract and philosophical. Different texts postulated the doctrine of a universal soul  that embraced all physical beings. All life emanated from this universal soul and death simply caused individual manifestations of the soul to merge or mingle back with the universal soul. The concept of a universal soul was illustrated through analogies from natural phenomenon.

“As the bees make honey by collecting the juices of distant trees, and reduce the juice into one form. And as these juices have no discrimination, so that they might say, I am the juice of this tree or that, in the same manner, all these creatures, when they have become merged in the True, know not that they are merged in the True. . . .”

“These rivers run, the eastern (like the Ganges) towards the east, the western (like the Indus) towards the west. They go from sea to sea (i.e., the clouds lift up the water from the sea to the sky and send it back as rain to the sea). They become indeed sea. And as those rivers, when they are in the sea, do not know, I am this or that river, in the same manner, all these creatures, proceeding from the True, know not that they have proceeded from the True. . . .”

In another story, the “wise” father, expounder of the Upanishadic concept of god, asks his son to dissolve salt in water, and asked him to taste it from the surface, from the middle and from the bottom. In each case, the son finds the taste to be salty. To this his father replies that the ‘universal being’ though invisible resides in all of us, just as the salt, though invisible is completely dissolved in the water. (Chanddogya, VI)

As a corollary to this theory emerged the notion that even as individual beings might refer to this universal soul – i.e. god in varied ways – by using different names and different methods of worship – all living beings were nevertheless related to each other and to the universal god, and capable of merging with the universal god. This approach thus laid the foundation for egalitarian and non-discriminatory philosophies such as Buddhism and Jainism (as well as non-sectarian streams of Hinduism) that followed the Upanishadic period. As is evident, such an approach  was not incompatible with secular society, and permitted different faiths and sub-faiths to coexist in relative peace and harmony.

In the course of defining their philosophy, the scholars of the Upanishad period raised several questions that challenged mechanical theism (as was also done in some hymns from the Rig Veda and Atharva Veda). If god existed as the unique creator of the world, they wondered who created this unique creator. The logical pursuit of such a line of questioning could either lead to an infinite series of creators, or to the rejection or abandonment of this line of questioning. The common theist solution to this philosophical dilemma was to simply reject logic and demand unquestioning faith on the part of the believer. A few theists attempted to use this contradiction to their own advantage by positing that god existed precisely because “He” was indescribable by mere mortals. But, by and large, this contradiction was taken very seriously by the philosophers of the Upanishadic period. The Upanishadic philosophers attempted to resolve this contradiction by defining god as an entity that extended infinitely in all dimensions covering both space and time. This was a philosophical advance in that it attempted to come to terms with at least the most obvious challenges to the notion of god as a human-like creator and did not require the complete rejection of logic.

Another philosophical advance of the Upanishadic period was that religion was transformed from the realm of bookish parroting of scriptures to the realm of advanced intellectual debate and polemics. The Upanishadic philosophers did not lay down their conclusions as rigid doctrines or inviolable laws but as seductive parables – sometimes displaying remarkable worldly insight and analytical skill. By attempting to win over their followers through analogies from nature, and by employing the methods of abstract reasoning and debate, they created an environment where dialectical thinking and intellectual exchanges could later flourish.

In the very process of their questioning, (and albeit speculative reasoning about god), they had opened the door for rationalists and even outright atheists who took their tentative questioning about the role and the character of god as “creator” to conclusions that rejected theism entirely. But in either case, many rationalist and/or naturalist philosophical streams emerged from this initial foundation. Some were nominally theistic (but in the abstract Upanishadic vein), others were agnostic (as the early Jains), while the early Buddhists and the Lokayatas were atheists. Thus even though the Upanishads contained much that should rightly be dismissed as abstruse intellectual jugglery and philosophical mumbo-jumbo, the Upanishadic philosophers had levelled the ground for the seeds of rationalism to flourish in Indian soil.

The Vaisheshika School

The Vaisheshika school (considered to be founded by Kanada, author of the Vaisesika Sutra) was an early realistic school whose main achievement lay in it’s attempt at classifying nature into like and unlike groups. It also posited that all matter was made up of tiny and indestructible particles – i.e. atoms that aggregated in different ways to form new compounds that formed the variety of matter that existed on the earth.

Their philosophy was described through the enumeration of the following concepts: Dravya (Substance), Guna (Quality), Karma (Action), Samanya (Generality), Visesa (Particularity), Samavaya (Inherence) and abhava (non-existence).

Dravya (or substance) was understood as the specific result of a particular aggregate effect – i.e. the combination of atoms in a unique way. Substances were repositories for qualities and actions. Guna or quality was that which resided in a dravya. Qualities did not however contain qualities themselves. 24 qualities were enumerated, such as – color, form, smell, touch, sound, number, magnitude, distinctions, conjunction, disjunction, nearness, remoteness, heaviness, fluidity and viscosity. (As was typical of the times, psychological attributes such as pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, effort, tendency, cognition, impression, and ethical attributes such as merit and demerit were also included in the list, i.e. – qualities that were inapplicable to inanimate objects were not treated separately)

Action or Karma represented physical movement. Unlike quality which was passive, Karma was dynamic. Action was the determinant of conjuction and disjunction. Five types of action were noted: throwing upwards or downwards, contraction, expansion and locomotion.

Satta or physical existence was viewed as being the common attribute of substance, quality and action – i.e. only existing (as opposed to imaginary) entities could have substance, qualities and be capable of action.

Samanyata or ‘generality’ was seen as a mental construct to create common classes of substances, qualities or actions while Visesata (particularity) was used to identify and separate individual items from their general classes. Samavaya or inherence was a relation that existed in those things that could not be separated without destroying them.

Four categories of Abhava as negation or non-existance were listed: pragabhava or prior non-existance, referring to the absence of an object before it’s creation; dhvamsabhava or posterior negation, as the absence of an object after it had been destroyed; anyonyabhava or mutual non-existance, refering to an object being distinct and different from the other; atyantabhava or absolute non-existence, indicating non-existence in the past, present and future, citing the example of air as permanently lacking in smell – (which was presumably true in a period where air pollution must have been uncommon!).

An important contribution of the Vaisheshika school was a careful study of the time-relation in a chain of causes and effects. In a very rudimentary way, the school (along with other such schools) anticipated the theory of time calculus which could also be extended to space calculus.

The Vaisheshika school thus served as an important step in the study of science by enumerating concepts that could further the study of physics and chemistry. In addition, the the study of medical science (including veterinary science) received considerable impetus from such attempts at methodical observation and classification.

The Nyaya and related schools

The Nyaya schools complemented and built on the Vaisheshika school by elaborating on the process of accumulating valid scientific knowledge through accurate perception and generating valid inferences.

The school articulated four means of acquiring valid knowledge: pratyaksha or perception through one of the senses; anumana or inference; upamana or comparison with a well-known object; or shabda – verbal testimony.

The conditions of perception, and it’s range and limits were carefully studied. Trasarenu – the minima sensibile (i.e. the minimum visible), anubhuta-rupa – the infra-sensible, abhibhuta – the obscured perception , and anubhuta-vriti – potential perception, were recognized as different types of perception.

A general methodology of ascertaining the truth (tattva) was described which consisted of describing a proposition (uddesa), the ascertainment of essential facts obtained through perception, inference or induction (laksan or uppa-laksana), and finally examination and verification (pariksa and nirnaya). This process could involve examples (drishtanta), logical arguments (avayava), reasoning (tarka) and discussion (vada) – , intellectual exchange, or interplay of two opposing sides in the process of arriving at a decisive conclusion. A successful application of this method could result in a siddhanta – i.e. established principle – (or in the case of mathematics – a theorem or theory) elucidated through proofs (pramana). Alternatively, it could lead to a rejection of the initial proposition.

The Nyaya school identified various types of arguments that hindered or obstructed the path of genuine scientific pursuit, suggesting perhaps, that there may have been considerable practical resistance to their unstinting devotion to truth-seeking and scientific accuracy. They list the term jalpa – an argument not for the sake of arriving at the truth but for the sake of seeking victory (this term was coined perhaps to distinguish exaggerated and rhetorical arguments, or hyperbole from genuine arguments); vitanda (or cavil) to identify arguments that were specious or frivolous, or intended to divert attention from the substance of the debate, that were put-downs intended to lower the dignity or credibility of the opponent; and chal – equivocation or ruse to confuse the argument. Three types of chal are listed: vakchala – or verbal equivocation where the words of the opponent are deliberately misused to mean or suggest something different than what was intended; samanyachala or false generalization, where the opponents arguments are deliberately and incorrectly generalized in a way to suggest that the original arguments were ridiculous or absurd; uparachala – misinterpreting a word which is used figuratively by taking it literally. Also mentioned is jati, a type of fallacious argument where an inapplicable similiarity is cited to reject an argument, or conversely an irrelevant dissimiliarity is cited to reject an argument.

The Nyaya school also recognized that intelligent and meaningful debates were not possible if certain fundamental principles and basic definitions and concepts were not mutually accepted. Nigrahasthana was the term used to identify disagreements based on absence of mutually acceptable first principles. An example might be a debate between a theist who rejected logic, and a non-theist who rejected faith.

The Nyaya school also listed five classes of logical fallacies (hetvabhasa) : savyabhichara or the inconclusive type which employed reasoning from which more than one conclusion could be drawn but was used to insist on a single specific conclusion; viruddha or contradictory, where the reasoning used actually contradicted the proposition to be established; kalatita – where the elapse of time had made the argument invalid; sadhyasama, the unproven type, where the reasoning employed rested on arguments or principles that had not been proven and require proofs themselves – i.e. this was the type of fallacy where one unproven result was merely converted into another unproven result.; and finally prakaranasama – where the reasoning employed provoked the very question it was designed to answer – i.e. a recursive fallacy.

In this manner, the Nyaya school defined a very sophisticated school of rational philosophy where the process of scientific epistemology was analyzed threadbare and all the dangers of unscientific reasoning and propaganda ploys were skillfully exposed.

Causality

Buddhist and Jain scholars, as well as later Hindu scholars offered their own approaches to scientific reasoning. Virtually all the rational schools were concerned with describing causality and causal relationships, and recognized that effects may not have single causes but may require a group or conjunction of causes to occur. Buddhist scholars emphasized that cause and effect need not have a linear effect but that desired effects may also require the right conditions for their fruition. (That is to say that for a plant to grow successfully, it would not only need the right seed, but that it would also need the right type of soil, fertilization, sunlight and water.)

Both the Jains and the Buddhists correctly speculated that a potential for the desired effect must also be present in the cause or causal agent. (For instance, only a mango seed could produce a mango tree because only the mango seed incorporated  the potential of developing into a mango tree.) As another example, one could note that  something with  brittle properties such as glass might break upon impact whereas something strong such as steel would survive. Thus a physical impact on substances of different properties would have different results.

The Nyaya school also recognized co-effects – i.e a series of antecedants could cause a series of effects – either successive and staggered in time, or near simultaneous. Nyaya texts on causality indicate that there was an awareness that light travelled at a very high speed but the transmission of light was not instantaneous.

Buddhist and Jain Atomic Theories

The Buddhist and Jain philosophers also proposed their own variations of the atomic theory. Like the Vaisheshikas, atoms were perceived as infinitely small by the Jainas. But the Jainas went a step further by positing that the union of atoms required opposite qualities in the combining atoms – as is true in the case of electrovalent bonding. However, they erred in thinking that covalent bonding (which does not require opposite polarities in the combining atoms) could not occur. But their intuition that opposite polarities created mutual attraction and facilitated chemical reactions was correct. In the Buddhist view, matter was in fact an aggregate of rapidly recurring forces or energy waves. Their theory was illustrated with examples drawn from natural phenomenon involved with light emission. An atom was perceived as a momentary flash of light combining and separating from other atoms according to strict and definite laws of causality. Physical matter was thus seen as a denser and more concentrated form of light. Although at odds with other atomic theories of the time, their approach fit in with their general view that all things in nature were temporal, that there was constant change in nature – that degradation and renewal were continuous processes.

The Syadvada system of Jain Logic

Jain philosophers also made certain important contributions to the science of epistemology by proposing that the truth of a concept or observation could not only be true or false but indeterminate – and combinations of the above – such as true under some conditions (or true at a particular time or place – or true based on the validity of certain inferences) and false under other conditions, or true under some conditions but indeterminate under others, and so on. This led to a matrix of seven possible states of the truth (true, false, true or false, indeterminate, true or indeterminate, false or indeterminate, true or false or indeterminate).

Jaina rationalists also studied the relationship between the universal and the particular and made important points concerning generalities and individual peculiarities. They also noted that  objects in the real world exist in a network of relationships with each other – and have specific attributes that mark them temporally and spatially:  “Every real is thus hedged round by a network of relations and attributes, which we propose to call its system or context or universe of discourse, which demarcates it from others.” Jaina philosophers also successfully synthesized earlier debates on change and permanence by positing that all objects (or parts of objects) passed through phases of  “existence, persistence, and cessation” and that reality was therefore a complex combination of things relatively permanent yet also relatively changing.

These ideas thus formed the foundations of Indian science and contributed to the gradual elaboration of mathematics and astronomy, as well as agricultural and meteorological sciences. Developments in metallurgy and civil engineering also followed. Medicine and surgery perhaps received the greatest and the earliest impetus from these developments. Developments in philosophy also led to concomitant developments in the realm of art and culture.

Yet. to a considerable extent, knowledge about the progress of science and reason in Indian history is often scarce.  These (and other such) historical contributions were either denied or demeaned during the process of colonization, and are only now beginning to be re-acknowledged within India and abroad. But in A. D 1068, Indian contributions to the mainstream of science were held in great esteem and readily acknowledged in some parts of the world:

Here is what Said Al-Andalusi, an 11th C Spanish scholar, court historian and chronicler wrote then: “Among the nations, during the course of centuries and throughout the passage of time, India was known as the mine of wisdom and the fountainhead of justice and good government and the Indians were credited with excellent intellects, exalted ideas, universal maxims, rare inventions and wonderful talents … They have studied arithmetic and geometry. They have also acquired copious and abundant knowledge of the movements of the stars, the secrets of the celestial sphere and all other kinds of mathematical sciences. Moreover, of all the peoples they are the most learned in the science of medicine and thoroughly informed about the properties of drugs, the nature of composite elements and peculiarities of the existing things.”