From: Mermaid . (britannica@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jan 04 2002 - 18:26:16 MST
[Mermaid]Vitriol? Disagreement = Vitriol? What the fuck is wrong with you?
[Hermit 1] No, you didn't spoil it for me. You might have made others as
confused as yourself, had I not addressed it though. Certainly, while you
appear to acknowledge that you don't know anything about what is going on,
you still seem determined to play the champion of India and the Indians at
the expense of anything else - including accuracy and friendship.
[Mermaid]I will address something far more serious before I dip toes into
your floaties. I am going to ignore the part about champion of India. No use
going over that.
[Mermaid]You mentioned 'friendship'. Is that a threat, Hermit? Because if it
is..I can wash my hands and walk away. And not look back..ever...because I
do not utter words that I dont believe. I will not censor myself because you
want to barter that for friendship. God knows, I have been censoring myself
for far too long for the sake of friendship without any any receprocation
whatsoever. Every provocation...every smug proclamation of superior,
although false, knowledge has always been initiated by you. I will not
prostitute my thoughts and opinions for the 'friendship' that you dangle in
front of me. You probably do not deserve my friendship if you are trying to
make deals like this.
[Mermaid]Do you know what friendship is...When you blathered about African
tribes killing children in..what was it..17th century?, I only had to utter
'Soweto' to rest my case....friendship is that instinct which made me brush
the entire thread away instead of shredding you to pieces...and letting you
go off scot free...
now ..thats out of my system..moving on..
[Mermaid]Listen, genius. I have no interest in the vedic code simply because
it doesnt interest me...i have never heard of it before. I have not read
into it so I take the fifth. at least now...I havent made a case for it or
against it. I only dug up the said stanza, which you could have picked it
up, if only you did a simple search.
[Mermaid]Your series of disinformation in the past few threads -beginning
with the Victorian social culture to the horror that was the apartheid - is
beyond belief or reason.
[Hermit] May I suggest that by selecting such a poor source you indicated
that - in this instance at least - you did not care about the validity of
the things you cited but only about your impact.
[Mermaid]Why is it a poor source? It wasnt meant to serve as an
interpretation, but only the relevant portions which is already in the book
published by the author with whom you are obviously 'very familiar'...It had
the sloka. It is not tainted. It had the code. That is not tainted. I do not
recall using it as the ultimate proof.
[Hermit]Do you think that your later "comments" on material you "didn't
read" does not show your bent.
[Mermaid]I only commented on your post and your obvious bias.
[Mermaid 0] You are so far beyond BULLSHIT, that it is futile to carry on a
discussion with you.
[Hermit 1] Apparently unsupported assertion neither deserving attention nor
amenable to a reply. Possibly a correct conclusion - if by a discussion you
mean that you hope to prove me incorrect from your current confused and
ignorant state. Let me encourage you. If you keep trying to learn and stop
trying to score points, you might eventually improve to a point where you
are capable of holding a discussion.
[Mermaid]Yeaaaaaaaa...right..this helps....
[Mermaid 0] Because I cannot fathom why you would stubbornly stick to
belittling everything that occured 25 years before
[Hermit 1] Are you confused again? Or still? 25 years before what?
"Belittling" what?
[Mermaid]Quoting you, "The "golden age" of Indian mathematics occurred 3000
years later, between approximately 800 CE and 1500 CE and has been
extensively analyzed (by real mathematicians, as opposed to mystics with
fake or spurious credentials) in the past 25 years."
[Mermaid 0] and inaccurately associating everything you stumble upon to the
Maharishi,
[Hermit 1] What, for example? As you should well know, I ascribe little but
BS to that source.
[Mermaid]Like I said...it is not an interpretation...The sloka existed long
before the book was published. You have given no reason other than your own
tortured bias to your rejection of the sloka or the code values. As far as I
am concerned, it is a matter of little concern because I am not interested
in the code or the sloka. My problem with you was the nonsense about ancient
Indian mathematicians being irrelevant because they belong to the priest
class. I was only being helpful by picking up something which you obviously
couldnt find even though you are 'very familiar' with the author...:)
[Mermaid 0] I have to come to the conclusion that it is something over and
above my ability to drill a hole in your head and dump some real knowledge.
[Hermit 1] Perhaps this was inevitable, as you will have to get hold of some
"real knowledge" first, but then, however will you recognize "real
knowledge," if you recommend a site as authoritive but reject its
conclusions - which are, by and large, the same as mine?
[Mermaid]I didnt make any conclusion. I dont see how the site reflects your
bias re Indian mathematics.
[Hermit] In any case, might I suggest that if you closed one of the holes in
your head, and concentrated on your eyes and ears that learning would come
more easily to you - and you might, given another 20 years or so, develop
the beginnings of the appearance of wisdom.
[Mermaid 0] For ANYONE who wishes to learn anything about Indian
Mathematics,
http://www-groups.dcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~history/Indexes/Indians.html
[Mermaid 0] This is the first one that turned up on a search and I am sure
libraries are stacked with information and so are the cyber information
sources.
[Hermit 1] Interesting - why diod you have to "search" for it? That is a
primary URL I cited for mathematical history [refer
http://forum.javien.com/XMLmessage.php?id=id::XQ8HO_tH-UxtX-TDAR-Lh4a-A3oQAHkyd3VI]
in a paragraph that you quote from (but where you excise the citation).
[Mermaid]You must have mistaken me for someone who frames everyone of your
posts and hangs it over their bed...:) I got the url from an independent
search I did on Mathematics, Ancient Indians and its history.
[Mermaid]The url I gave was a general reference and it wasnt used in any
argument.
[Hermit]I am glad you agree with my assessment of the importance of this
site, but wonder why you imagine that I would quote as a primary source one
that does not support my position?
[Mermaid]You do?
this is what I got from the forum link..I didnt pick the url from your post.
<snip>
Yash, in an aside, happened to mention:
The same exists within the Vedic tradition whereby a small four-sentence ode
to Krishna, whose meaning is a prayer to him, in fact stores the value of
pi/10 to 32 decimal places when each syllable is converted into its
corresponding numerical value in the Vedic gematria system. It is also said
that this very verse contains a master-key to expand the number of pi
decimal values indefinitely (!?!).
===
Hermit, who is interested in the history of technology, notes that the Vedas
have been used as the basis for all kinds of weird claims, but that this is
a new one on me - which, if true, will necessitate the rewriting of a lot of
mathematical history.
But is it true?
Given that the Indians themselves do not make this claim (recognizing the
priest scholar Baudhayana as their first "mathematician" (in around 800
BCE)), and given that the Harrapa did not realize the nature of PI at all,
as in the Sulbasutra (around 300 BCE) (in turn developed from the Harrapan
Shatapatha Brahmana and Taittiriya Samhita)) the ratio of the area of a
circle to the square of its radius is given as 3.088 and the ratio of the
circumference to the diameter is given as 3.2, making it clear that they
imagined that these were "different" constants (and dreadfully approximate
results too), I would suggest that the claim would, on its face appear to be
false.
An additional indicator of the falsity of this claim would be the "standard"
Indian approximation to PI of 62832/20000 and the attribution to the
Keralese mathematicians (Madhava (1400 CE) et al) of the transition from
finite to infinite progressions.
So, as this claim runs counter to everything I (and others) know about the
history of PI please provide details and expansion of these claims,
including a reference to the verse and gematria. (If your reply is in
Sanskrit please mail it directly to me as a graphic).
Regards
Hermit
PS Mathematical historians consider that the first time that PI was
determined to over 30 digits was by van Ceulen in the late 1500s.
<end>
[Hermit]Perhaps because you are prone to this failing? Certainly, it would
be legitimate for others to wonder why you seem so excited by your
"discovery" of the site... given that it directly supports
the arguments I made and which you seem to refer to as "Bullshit." Are you
confused again or as seems ever more probable, as usual?
[Mermaid]More screeching ..hmm...My responses and objections were ONLY for
the snippets that I cut and pasted from your response to Yash.
[Mermaid 0] The same source has other interesting links about the history of
Mathematics. I am looking forward to getting lost in there. I know I will be
busy for several days.
[Hermit 1] You might say thank-you. After all, you might end up with some
"real-knowledge" that you thought was "bullshit" when it came from me...
[Mermaid]Why should I thank you?
[Hermit 0] However, I feel obliged to say a few words...especially about
your statement, "I observed on them within quotations - for a reason. The
ancient "Indian Mathematicians" were not primarily mathematicians, but
priests. And their output was tainted and limited by this."
[Mermaid]Err...I said that...you said what is in quotes...
[Mermaid 0] Panini, the mathematician and linguist is supposed to have been
around from 520-460.B.C. He is credited for the enormous strides he took to
polish Sanskrit. He was a Sanskrit linguist who laid the foundation for
'vedic mathematics'....<balance of Mermaids unsophisticated linguistic stew
reserved>.
[Hermit 1] Do you imagine this as a refutation of the above?
[Mermaid]Yes. The paragraph that you so skillfully nixed explains the
origins of the structure of Sanskrit. This structure helped mathematicians
to use words instead of numbers. But development of Sanskrit as a structured
language resulted in the concentration of algebra instead of geometry and
mensuration as it was in the Greek world. The 'nine signs' that Severus
Sebokht talks about in the quote I provided at the end...which was also
snipped by you...are the 9 digits..1-9. Aryabhatta later developed a
mathematical system where he used an empty space to denote zero. Yes. Even
I, who is not a mathematician, can see the relationship between the language
of Sanskrit and mathematics of the ancient times. Because the Vedas were in
Sanskrit and mathematical notations were also in Sanskrit and especially
because mathematics blossomed only because of the language of Sanskrit, it
is not that difficult to see the relationship between language and
mathematics. The fact that it was in Sanskrit or that it was developed by
men who were religious and belonged to the priest class does nothing to
diminish the fact that ancient Indians contributed generously to the field
of mathematics.
[Hermit]Are you asserting that the "ancient Indian Mathematicians" were not
"primarily priests?"
[Mermaid]Did I?
[Hermit]Or do you imagine that I spoke to the development of Sanskrit
rather than the origins and developments of mathematics? Now I am sure you
are confused - and you appear determined to prove that this is "business as
usual".
[Mermaid]Hey! Why dont I cut and paste the part to which I choose to respond
and to which I took offense to...AGAIN..since you snipped it off...
<repeat snip>
[Mermaid]So, what are my issues? Various snippets below..
[Hermit]The "golden age" of Indian mathematics occurred 3000 years later,
between approximately 800 CE and 1500 CE and has been extensively analyzed
(by real mathematicians, as opposed to mystics with fake or spurious
credentials) in the past 25 years.
[Hermit]I suspect that your eagerness is misplaced. Science, is a method. It
can only be followed, or not followed, and takes no qualification. "Holy
science" is by definition, wholly self-contradictory (that which is accepted
by faith cannot be falsified) - and while ancient astronomy, as an adjunct
to astrology, is sometimes interesting as it throws light on ancient society
or to provide dating references, almost all of it is useless except to those
attempting to understand more primitive societies - and then they had best
be researching in the original language or it is likely they will eventually
discover that their sources are compromised - as, it seems to me, are yours.
[Hermit] I observed on them within quotations - for a reason. The ancient
"Indian Mathematicians" were not primarily mathematicians, but priests. And
their output was tainted and limited by this. Unlike the Greeks, who refused
to accept "because the gods said so" as a reason and investigated the
"mathematics of the imaginary," the Harrapans and Vedics - like the
Sumerians and Egyptians before them, ceased investigation once they had
solved the concrete problems they needed to address - like how to build a
circular altar. e.g. "The Sulbasutras are<snip>
[Hermit] It is not prejudice that prevents ancient "Indian mathematicians"
from being credited with significant discoveries, but rather the fact that
there were no significant Indian mathematicians or discoveries that we know
of until much later. Perhaps it is worth mentioning that the Indian
mathematicians are frequently credited with simplifying the Sumerians
positional base 60 system to base 10, sometime when the Vedas were first
being chanted (although, of course, this is not as significant as the
earlier Sumerian development of this system). Does this show prejudice -if
so, it seems to be in favor of the Indians and against the Sumerians?
<end snip>
[Mermaid]Summing up for each paragraph...#1.I had problem with your
definition of the 'golden age of Indian mathematics'. Panini died in 460.B.C
after giving birth to the structure of Sanskrit. Aryabhatta was the most
prolific mathematicians of all times and he was a fifth century
mathematician. #2. You have no right to discredit the contributions of
Indian mathematicians because of their religious beliefs. Mathematics is
logical. Logic doesnt lie. Logic doesnt bow to any God. #3.The
priest-mathematician's output was NOT tainted and limited by their religious
beliefs. We are not talking of creation science..we are talking numbers. The
reference to Sulbasutras only indicates that they were carrying on the
traditions of Babylonian mathematics. So how can its credibility suddenly
diminish because it was practiced by priests for the building of sacrificial
altars? #4 It is false that there were no ancient Indian mathematicians
before your 'golden age' timeperiod who didnt make any significant
discoveries. They carried on from the knowledge that were handed down to
them, but the 'prejudice' that was being mentioned relates to mathematical
discoveries credited to the Greeks AFTER it was recorded in Indian
Mathematical treatises. Astronomy, decimal system, zero, notations
etc....just because Indian mathematicians didnt call it 'zero' and didnt
denote it with '0' doesnt mean that they were not aware of the concept
called zero.
[Hermit 1] Do us all - including you - a favor and read the site - not just
the Indian section (I would suggest that particular attention should be
given to Sumerian and Babylonian mathematics, calendars and
astronomy),before replying to this. Take careful notes of the Sumerian,
Babylonian (and Egyptian perhaps) and Vedic accomplishments, and try to
recognize which is chicken and which is egg (shown by genetic analysis
reported in the CoV over the last two years). If you frame your apologies
nicely I may accept them.
[Mermaid]LOL
[Hermit]I'll try not to embarrass you by attempting to analyze your screeds
before you do this... Hopefully afterwards I won't need to.
[Mermaid 0] P.S.Now for the more fun chit chat...From your earlier
mail:..you cannot be a Siddhar. The titles that the Maharishi bestows upon
your head has very little credibility.
[Hermit 1] While I agree about the Maharishi and his credibility or rather
his complete lack thereof, it is generally recognized that he, and he alone,
has the power to appoint "Siddhars." The reason being that he and/or bodies
or entities associated with him own the copyright to the word. As a subtle
issue which I had thought that you knew, the TM movement misspells
everything it shits on - and trademarks it. Thus I am indeed a Siddhar and
supposedly able to fly, walk through walls, become invisible, control the
void, exercise my god-consciousness, etc. etc.
[Mermaid]Do you realise how ridiculous this sounds?
1.You dont mind referring to yourself as a Siddhar because the Maharishi
bestowed that title on you. Despite all your lofty claims, you are quite
ignorant about the ways and culture of India.
2.But you reject the Maharishi and all that he represents.
[Hermit 1] While I would argue that whether you spell it Siddha or Siddhar,
all of these claims are vacuous bullshit, the above appears to leave yet
another of your wannabe arguments looking dazed and confused. A bit like its
owner perhaps.
[Mermaid]Siddha/Siddhar is not a matter of spelling, but that of meaning.
Siddha, according to Hindu myth, is one of the 18 celestial beings. These
beings of semi-divine status were said to be of great purity. Later they
came to denote a better human being, an accomplished yogi. Sidh=sanskrit
root..it means fulfilment. It implies that the Siddha has achieved
perfection. Tamil does not share the same Sanskrit consonants. So the Tamils
pronounced it as 'cittar'. Cittar became Siddhar and it came to be
identified with the sanskrit word, 'chit' which means consciousness. So, it
doesnt mean 'an accomplished person'...a siddhar is a devotee..someone who
is completely immersed in the consciousness. He doesnt have to be a Brahmin.
Infact, Siddhars ridiculed idol worship, the cultural defects of Brahminism.
They ingested huge amounts of opium and celebrated sex. He is crude and
unorthodox. He is a wandering mystic well versed in Yoga and Tantra. He is
unkempt and despised by the learned Brahmin. He was the ultimate anarchist.
I am sure Maharishi would have known the difference between Siddhar and
Siddha....:)
You are not a Siddhar. You are an atheist and a 'scientist', remember? I
have done a lot of reading on their original works. Siddha is distinctly
different from Siddhar. You could do yourself a favour and stop believing
everything that floats around you.
[Hermit 1] Thanks for the poetry though. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
[Mermaid]I did too. Thats why I posted it.
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:38 MDT