I don't know if the world is scientifically "advanced" right now or if we are using science and technology just for a luxurious life. We actually do not know if the science we have is really advanced. So much to explore. So many possibilities. We have to keep our eyes open. Read nature and explore it. Because there is so much to find out. One life is not enough. It takes generations. Milena. To carry the legacy forward. The legacy of understanding, exploring.
The character that separates humans from other species is the ability to be curious. The capacity to explore. The art of skepticism. We are not blind at heart. Humans did not start blind. They explored, broad minded. Atleast I feel that they did. Because they were not complicated socially, like we are.Today! Architecture, engineering, astronomy, warfare, social behavior. Man developed himself. Or did he? Did he complicate himself? So complicated that man had to understand himself instead of the nature. Thus, social behavior brought in castism, racism and religion, glorifying and adoring humans instead of nature; creating persona to represent human greatness. Warfare brought in new, deadly inventions which were used to protect religions and human beliefs.
No wonder now we fight over who did better in everything. Religions have so much in common. Yet, we fight over which is better. Ancient scientists had so much in common. Yet, we are fighting over who fared better in research. The Upanishads might have talked about the Heisenberg Uncertainity Principle but we have to realise that it was Heisenberg who carried the legacy of those great books forward and became a major reason for Quantum Mechanics studies to be continued at a large scale. If not for him, probably we would not be doing "Re"search in that area. The uncertainity principle that the Upanishads talked about would be left behind in those yellowing pages!! I don't think a Rajnath Singh would be working on the topic.
.jpg)
Science as we know never had any boundaries nor it has right now. So, it is a wrong thing to stake claim over some work. How can then people not recognise the work of ancient Indians? While it is true that we should carry on research on aeronautics instead of just blabbering about the fact that ancient Indians did work on Vimana Sastra, we should acknowledge the work they started. The west has realised the works of Archimedes, Pythagoras, Euclid etcetera and are working on what they started, giving them good credit. Why are we Indians, less than the world (other countries are concentrating better on ancient Indian science more than the Indians) are failing to carry forward the legacy left behind by age old Indian scientists?
I feel that the problem occurs because ancient Indian science is associated with religion. Not everybody thinks like Dr.Abdul Kalam and follows the scientific achievements without a religious eye. Archimedes and Euclid are not associated with any religion and Christian, Jew and any other scientist in the modern world follows their science equally. Why is that people associate Indian science with religion is surprising. Is it because an Indian renaissance has not yet occured? Or have we missed the renaissance due to pure laziness for which we are known for?? For perks, if we believe in the art of skepticism, we should not blindly believe in God and we should not blindly not believe in God too, right??
The character that separates humans from other species is the ability to be curious. The capacity to explore. The art of skepticism. We are not blind at heart. Humans did not start blind. They explored, broad minded. Atleast I feel that they did. Because they were not complicated socially, like we are.Today! Architecture, engineering, astronomy, warfare, social behavior. Man developed himself. Or did he? Did he complicate himself? So complicated that man had to understand himself instead of the nature. Thus, social behavior brought in castism, racism and religion, glorifying and adoring humans instead of nature; creating persona to represent human greatness. Warfare brought in new, deadly inventions which were used to protect religions and human beliefs.
No wonder now we fight over who did better in everything. Religions have so much in common. Yet, we fight over which is better. Ancient scientists had so much in common. Yet, we are fighting over who fared better in research. The Upanishads might have talked about the Heisenberg Uncertainity Principle but we have to realise that it was Heisenberg who carried the legacy of those great books forward and became a major reason for Quantum Mechanics studies to be continued at a large scale. If not for him, probably we would not be doing "Re"search in that area. The uncertainity principle that the Upanishads talked about would be left behind in those yellowing pages!! I don't think a Rajnath Singh would be working on the topic.
Science as we know never had any boundaries nor it has right now. So, it is a wrong thing to stake claim over some work. How can then people not recognise the work of ancient Indians? While it is true that we should carry on research on aeronautics instead of just blabbering about the fact that ancient Indians did work on Vimana Sastra, we should acknowledge the work they started. The west has realised the works of Archimedes, Pythagoras, Euclid etcetera and are working on what they started, giving them good credit. Why are we Indians, less than the world (other countries are concentrating better on ancient Indian science more than the Indians) are failing to carry forward the legacy left behind by age old Indian scientists?
I feel that the problem occurs because ancient Indian science is associated with religion. Not everybody thinks like Dr.Abdul Kalam and follows the scientific achievements without a religious eye. Archimedes and Euclid are not associated with any religion and Christian, Jew and any other scientist in the modern world follows their science equally. Why is that people associate Indian science with religion is surprising. Is it because an Indian renaissance has not yet occured? Or have we missed the renaissance due to pure laziness for which we are known for?? For perks, if we believe in the art of skepticism, we should not blindly believe in God and we should not blindly not believe in God too, right??
No comments:
Post a Comment