Vedanta is based on scientific knowledge. Vedanta means end part of Vedas. It consists of Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and Brahma Sutras. Vedanta is also called Shruti (that which is heard). Other class of ancient texts are called Smriti (that which is remembered). If something in Smriti conflicts with Shruti then it is usually rejected. Much of the knowledge acquired in Vedanta is not dependent on human senses. Most of the material science of the west is strictly sense dependent. So the acquisition of knowledge like in Vedanta is extremely difficult for ordinary sense bound scientists. So there is always a conflict between these two groups of scientists as to what is science and what is not. To give an extreme example, Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa gave a completely new definition for the word “knowledge.“ According to him, to know God is knowledge, not to know him is ignorance. On this scale all the material scientists with multiple PhD degrees would fall in the class of ignorants. The word Gnyani (man of knowledge) is reserved for those who have the knowledge of God. And the word Vignyani (man of scientific knowledge) is reserved for those who have the first hand intimate knowledge of Brahman (all pervasive infinite formless God) with direct perception in Nirvikalp Samadhi.

"Sri Ramakrisha The Great Master" by Swami Saradananda, (tr.) Swami Jagadananda.

http://www.chennaimath.org/istore/product/sri-ramakrishna-the-great-master/

"The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna." by Mahendranath Gupta, (tr.) Swami Nikhilananda.

http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Sri-Ramakrishna-Abridged-Edition/dp/0911206027

Above books available across the world at Vedanta Society bookstores. http://www.vedanta.org/wiv/links/centers.html

Dear Swapna

First you have to define what do you mean my Science here ! Science in Western context during the last 300 years is an outcome of many social-psychological factors coupled with the huge empirical resources produced in a rapidly changing society . Let me remind that , every society has their own empirical resources ; but that does not necessarily ensure development of scientific Theoretical model .

Indian society had been a very different one in the sense of developing empirical resources which can be universally shared by all the potential recipients belonged to different social conditions . In fact the mode of knowledge production and norms of sharing this knowledge was very restrictive and almost unchanged for a long time before the colony started .

To conclude , I would say that , the norms of comparison between the Two Knowledge stores in West and East are still not well defined . As a consequence , apart from some useless analogy between traditional and modern knowledge at very superficial level we have done very little so far .

Can have a look www.nalandadialogmission.wordpress.com

Best

Debajyoti

Vedanta is based on scientific knowledge. Vedanta means end part of Vedas. It consists of Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and Brahma Sutras. Vedanta is also called Shruti (that which is heard). Other class of ancient texts are called Smriti (that which is remembered). If something in Smriti conflicts with Shruti then it is usually rejected. Much of the knowledge acquired in Vedanta is not dependent on human senses. Most of the material science of the west is strictly sense dependent. So the acquisition of knowledge like in Vedanta is extremely difficult for ordinary sense bound scientists. So there is always a conflict between these two groups of scientists as to what is science and what is not. To give an extreme example, Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa gave a completely new definition for the word “knowledge.“ According to him, to know God is knowledge, not to know him is ignorance. On this scale all the material scientists with multiple PhD degrees would fall in the class of ignorants. The word Gnyani (man of knowledge) is reserved for those who have the knowledge of God. And the word Vignyani (man of scientific knowledge) is reserved for those who have the first hand intimate knowledge of Brahman (all pervasive infinite formless God) with direct perception in Nirvikalp Samadhi.

"Sri Ramakrisha The Great Master" by Swami Saradananda, (tr.) Swami Jagadananda.

http://www.chennaimath.org/istore/product/sri-ramakrishna-the-great-master/

"The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna." by Mahendranath Gupta, (tr.) Swami Nikhilananda.

http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Sri-Ramakrishna-Abridged-Edition/dp/0911206027

Above books available across the world at Vedanta Society bookstores. http://www.vedanta.org/wiv/links/centers.html

As a person who was taught in Western science and life taught him the Eastern science, I can say that there are ways to reconcile those two streams of knowledge.

Personally, I agree with Vedanta texts and keep them in high respect as they describe that what is not understandable by common senses. The western scientists are often underestimating knowledge covered in Vedanta.

The knowledge about Brahman is covered correctly in Vedanta. It agrees with my personal experiences and experiences of many other scientists who went through near-death or rarely after-death experiences. Those who meditate and lead spiritual practice can confirm perceiving the All what was Created and That What Was Not in the same way as is described by Brahman.

Brahman as the source of all, it is sometimes called Emptiness, Void, Nothingness, zero-point energy, vacuum energy ...

Western science is not possessing measuring tools capable to confirm Brahmans existence directly but it is already proven indirectly by research conducted in the field of Consciousness using statistical methods.

Things will slowly change and the Western and Eastern sciences will be merged into one knowledge. The underestimation of Eastern and especially Indian knowledge will end soon as the current status quo of Western science is undergoing a transition, which is not yet reflected in its mainstream.

Thank you brothers for all your well thought responses to my question.

I perfectly agree with the essence of these responses. There is a large section of people out there who can experience these age-old wisdom as substantial and true, but there is much larger section to whom it is not even available let alone understood. As this knowledge originated a very long time ago outside of whatever we term "modern" and "research-based" , its profound influence and usefulness is lost to science and people.

For one to understand quantum physics in university, he should start with learning about atoms at secondary school; with time and step by step knowledge, he gradually grows up to perceive that the principles of physics are true. But when it comes to Vedic wisdom, I feel discussions on the topic are held with "modern scientists" who has not had any foundational training in perception- enhancing practices like meditation/ fasting that prepares their sixth sense/mind to perceive subtleness beyond our five senses. No wonder they do not understand or agree with university level principles of Vedic /ancient knowledge that are often discussed in "science Vs spirituality" conferences without any fundamental knowledge and personal experience. The generic word spirituality actually undermines the science that makes up ancient Indian wisdom.

I also hope that as mentioned in Jiri's response above, slowly but steadily the current status quo of Western science is undergoing a transition, and the Western and Eastern sciences will be merged into one knowledge.

I don't think that religious literature can be considered a "scientific textbook", because the essence of spiritual progress is not quantitative, but qualitative. Of course, this is not to say that they are not useful. I spent many years learning ancient languages specifically for the purpose of being able to read the ancient spiritual texts in their original languages. But I would also recommend not neglecting the _modern_ wisdom, such as found in the books by H.A. Overstreet (e.g. his "The Enduring Quest") or the Fifth Epochal Revelation (see http://www.bibles.org.uk/study-edition.html). These two examples I gave actually discuss the development of modern quantum mechanics and I find them extremely illuminating. BUT... there is a big but... Those beings (including enlightened humans) can never give us unearned knowledge and so we still have to make our actual discoveries by ourselves. For example, I "know" (from spiritual revelations) that there are "619 inhabited planets in our local system". But, so what? Where are those planets? What is the significance of this fact in the astronomical context? None, whatsoever. If I want this "fact" to have any practical significance, then I still have to discover them myself, using the telescope and any/all scientific means --- NOT blindly trusting what the revelations reveal. However, spiritually (or "intuitively" --- that is the closest word in our language to describe spirit transactions) I know that this fact is true, because.... Hmm.... if I could express in words (i.e. on the conceptual level) "why" exactly do I know this, that would be a miracle, because super-conceptual level transactions cannot be translated down to the conceptual level, just like the conceptual level conversations (e.g. between humans) cannot be brought down to the merely perceptual level, i.e. to be understood, say, by dogs or horses.

Ancient wisdom and science as having been developed since Galileo are two very different areas. While ultimately they may have the same purpose – the knowledge of the truth, they widely differ in methodology. Science is bound to logic and reasoning, while wisdom teaching is bound to contemplation and trials of pure perception. Science is based on an ordered movement of thoughts, while the ancient wisdom is based on concentration, on thought fixation and the final negation of thinking.

There is not Eastern or Western Science. There is only the Science, or if you prefer the Galileo's Science. A set of "knowledges" to be called Science, must satisfy two requirements:

- Must have a logical formal language that describes those knowledges and gives you the possibility to make predictions (e.g. math for physics);

- You should be able to verify your predictions (i.e. theories) by scientific experiments (where scientific here means, experiments which follows the scientific method of Galileo, which includes several things, for instance a scientific experiments should be reproducible, under the right condition, by everyone in every part of the world).

This is Science. No Eastern nor Western. Thus religious books (useful or not, this is another topic) they are not scientific book.

Thanks Luigi for your answer and for explaining the two requirements for something to be included under "Science".

However, my question is not about any "religious" books, but about ancient Indian knowledge texts like the Veda, Charaka Samhita, Susrutha Samhitha etc. To classify them under religion is inappropriate and meaningless. For example Charaka Samhita is a text book of medicine and Susrutha Samhitha, probably the worlds' first text book on surgery. Veda means knowledge and it covers every known aspect of life from subtle to cosmic at such great magnitude that even Einstein, Bohr and other eminent modern scientists were hugely inspired by them.

I feel you consider them as "religious" books as they came from ancient India from where Hinduism also originated. For that matter, the doubt is settled when you understand that what we call Hinduism is not a "religion"; it is only a set of principles and philosophy that guides the way of life for any person who chooses to follow it. Hinduism is a geographical identity rather than religious identity in that it relates to people who lived along side the Indus river who led a lifestyle based on the principles of rightousness (Sanatan Dharma) - post colonially came to be called Hindus.

Vedas cannot be considered to be scientific textbooks. One may personally follow the principles led down there for one's own satisfaction, but it cannot be considered to be science. As Luigi Marangio has already mentioned scientific principles make themselves available for verification, there is no such thing possible with the vedas. There are also no valid proof that Einstein and Bohr were inspired by the vedas. They have discussed the philosophical aspects of science at length but there is no such instance where they were inspired by the vedas.

Swapna Kunhunny I excuse my self to have been superficial with the term "religious". I really do not know how "Charaka Samhita" looks like and what is the content of the book. If it satisfy the requirements that I mentioned in the last answer then you can consider it Science.

I do not know if Einstein were inspired by those books, but even if, if you want to do Science, inspiration it is not enough: you need formal and experimental proofs, as for instance Einstein needed the Minkowski spacetime as a mathematical model of relativity theory.

On the other hand the role of Science it is actually to "control" your instinct or your inspiration: if you launch a stone and a piece of paper from a tower, you will see the stone falling faster then the paper; thus your instinct will lead you to think that this is because the stone "has more mass" in some sense. This is not true (I hope everybody know why), even if it seems reasonable, and you can understand why this is false (and what actually is going on) with math and physics, there is no other way.

So "inspiration" books, even if they can motivate people, and this is always something good, they can lead to a totally misunderstanding of the reality and that is why Science is needed, this is why Science is something different.

We do not have any physical instrument capable of measuring consciousness. Does it mean that consciousness is an imaginary idea? It is only one example to show all truth is not measurable using physical instruments; hence not all truth is verifiable by all ,and if that is the case not all truth is science. Hence should we just conclude that truth is much larger than science.

If science is only that which is reproducible, under the right condition, by everyone in every part of the world; for a blind person any science that has been proved using visual apparatus must not be science as he is unable to see it himself.

Swapna Kunhunny Your question was

"Can ancient wisdom like Yoga, Veda, Ayurveda, Charaka Samhita and the like be considered as scientific textbooks?"

I gave you an answer to this question, by specifying to you what is Science and what is not.

If you want to speak more in general of "truth", or of the limit of Science, these are philosophical question, but first this was not your original question, second, it is just not my job (so I cannot answer you).

Let me tell something to this discussion, which values a lot because it hits to the core of the progress of the 'Mathematical Medicine'.

We, westerners, educated in Western philosophy and understanding of the Universe are forgetting that up to Descartes there were two main streams in the understanding of the World/Universe: metaphysics and physics.

Descartes said: "Let us study only physics and let metaphysics to church." He, his contemporaries, all people of this era were pretty aware of metaphysics. We are not.

Metaphysics was ridiculed for centuries as something 'unscientific', weird, not acceptable.

Recent western research is again coming back to the metaphysical questions: consciousness, telepathy, NDEs ... The scientific establishment refuses it up to now but it is going to change.

We currently have proofs of telepathy, the existence of consciousness out of body, synchronicity, the energy called Prana ... but we are in denial.

When we look at ancient Indian knowledge, we see a hard empirical, reproducible knowledge. It is an empirical science. Those data tell that, e.g., such and such health condition can be healed using some specific procedure. It is the evidence-based knowledge. Why some people have a problem with some kind of evidence and are worshiping another type?

Modern science is based on a statistical evaluation of the treatment of many people having the same disease. When Ayurveda succeeds in classifying some diseases with high specificity and sensitivity and healing those diseases, I am very happy.

Actually, there is a growing bulk of research going on, mostly in India, that proves the effectiveness of Ayurvedic therapy of many diseases.

The only problem is that Ayurveda is not using western classification of diseases but take into account body, mind, and spirit simultaneously and heal all three components simultaneously.

Because, I do use the mind and spiritual healing personally, work in biomedical research, I am a mathematician and do have a personal experience with serious cardiomyopathy, there is certain knowledge about the topic.

Western medicine can start to walk towards the holistic, personalized, and predictive medicine. Actually, there are already first attempts in progress and I do have the honor to be a part of one such project dealing with assessing the heart condition and prediction of arrhythmias.

According to what was already accomplished, we can achieve a substantial progress in this direction in the course of several decades. Modern mathematics has tools enabling us to reconcile the wisdom of Western and traditional Eastern medicines.

The 21st century will be the century of bio-mathematics. It is after almost 400 years the first major change in mathematical thinking and you can become part of it. That is very tempting and exciting for many young researchers who would like to accomplish parts of such research.

That is my 0.02$.

Many thanks Jiří for the enlightening response.

I am thrilled to know that many modern scientists are opening up to welcome, trial out and absorb knowledge and truth of all sorts. For a lay person like myself, science represents wisdom, truth and progress. It was disheartening to see that many "scientists" are unable to accept even the possibility of anything else existing beyond what they know or can experience and understand. Funnily enough, they are quick to dismiss something or make judgements on it even before seeing it, let alone attempting to understand the content, context and meaning of something that is unfamiliar. What will be the future of science if it did not welcome new ideas, be it old or new, from which ever part of the world?

That is why I was interested to know why the wisdom of ancient people that is an excellent supplemental and supportive material to the "knowledge bank" is not included under science. This would have been ten fold more useful to us if that was the case.

What is true will remain true whether or not a particular section of people acknowledges it. But in the case of scientific sector, it does matter to the world what it believes to be true and what not- as modern world relies a lot on "science" to provide answers for all kinds of problems; they don't stop to think whether or not their individual issue is reproducable in the right condition, by everyone in every part of the world for science to be able to give an answer. Of course this is not the problem of science, but of peoples' attitude towards where they look for answers and for what kind of question.

In western cosmology, the big bang theory cannot explain the presence of consciousness in the universe and it cannot explain where all the energy in the universe came from and they do not know the connection between consciousness (Spirit) and energy and they do not know the infinitude of Brahman (Spirit) of Veda. This infinite Spirit is the fundamental substance of the universe from which entire universe was created.

Following theory called the Advaitic Big Bang is an improved version of big bang which addresses some of the issues discussed above.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325779993_Advaitic_big_bang

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31527.65449

There are many scientists who are proponents of NOTHING theory. They say the universe was created from nothing and thus the empty space is nothing. If you ask them where all the energies of the universe came from? They will tell you about the zero energy universe. They say the total energy (positive and negative) of the universe is always zero. Particularly Buddhist and Muslim doctrines support the Nothing theory. Therefore these scientists are looking for a fundamental building block of the universe which is a micro entity.

Following theory does not support the NOTHING theory.

In the beginning there was unified field of consciousness (Spirit) which is the fundamental substance of the universe from which entire universe was created. This fundamental substance also called “the unmanifest is absolute, indivisible, infinite, motionless ocean of pure consciousness in which there are no vibrations. This indivisible consciousness is formless and has no boundaries and is the only thing that existed before the universe was created and therefore it is one without a second. This ocean of consciousness is all knowing because prior to the creation of the universe, there was nothing else for it to know other than itself. This ocean of consciousness was also blissfull because the unmanifest consciousness and bliss are not two separate things. This ocean of consciousness is called unmanifest because it is not manifest to the five human senses of the observer. This does not mean that it does not exist. This unmanifest when viewed through the five human senses appear as the empty space. Hence the unmanifest can be described as the existence knowledge bliss absolute. We call this absolute because in the absence of second there cannot be relativity. Therefore it is beyond space and time and the laws of relativity fail at the level of the unmanifest.”

The unmanifest was not caused by anything else. It was there through eternity and will remain through eternity to come. But the unmanifest itself is The Great Cause of the universe. When a very small fraction of the unmanifest began to move (big bang), it was apparently divided into quanta of spirit which physicists call energy. Each quanta associated with a wavelength and period of its associated deBroglie wave. This is how length (space) and period (time) came into existence. Human senses and the scientific instruments cannot detect what is perfectly motionless. But they can detect energy which is always associated with motion. Both Spirit and energy are indestructible. So the energies of the universe expand within Infinite Motionless Spirit.

More details in my following published research articles.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266618399_Unified_field_of_consciousness

Above article is a slightly improved version of the following chapter published in Nova book.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262494186_Consciousness_and_energy

Consciousness and energy

In: The Big Bang: Theory, Assumptions and Problems

Editors: J.R. O’Connell and A.L. Hale, pp.275-284,

ISBN 978-1-60456-802-8; March 2012, Nova Science Publishers, Inc. N.Y.

https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=21109

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Big-Bang-Assumptions-Problems/dp/1613245777/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1333360764&sr=1-5

http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Bang-Assumptions-Problems/dp/1613245777

Thank you very much Vikram for taking the time to answer my question. I'm speechless by the condensed information within the reply. Will definitely work through it to understand more.

Dear Swapna

Thank you for a nice question. My answer is YES of course.

Natural science is a language which human beings use to explain their observations to each others.

We are curious. We want to understand what we observe. We setup models to be discussed with our fellow human beings. In the end we believe in our models. It is some kind of religion.

Some times we fall in love with our models and we forget to ask questions. The Big-Bang theory is an example of such a model. To me the universe must be infinite in size and oscillating in time. The Big-Bang is just a zero crossing.

Dear Vikram

concerning your statement:

"In the beginning there was unified field of consciousness (Spirit) which is the fundamental substance of the universe from which entire universe was created."

In the bible it says "In the beginning there was the WORD"

To me the holy ghost, god, life is behind the universe.

https://www.biblehub.com/john/1-1.htm

Dear Erik:

By saying “In the beginning there was unified field of consciousness (Spirit) …”, what I mean is that “before the beginning there was unified field of consciousness (Spirit) …” This unified field of consciousness (Spirit, Brahman) does not have a beginning or an end. Whatever has a beginning must have an end. No exceptions to this law.

When this motionless Spirit (Brahman) began to move (big bang) it gave out discrete quanta of spirit which physicists call energy. Scientific instruments and human senses can only detect those things which are in motion. So Spirit (Brahman) is undetectable but energy is detectable. This phenomenon occurs all the time in the human brain on a small scale. Brahman (Spirit) is the innermost substance of everything including humans. When this Brahman begins to move, it presents itself as thought waves in the human mind. Human mind can detect these thought waves which are forms of energy. But human mind cannot locate the source of these thought waves. As if the thought waves have arisen from nothing.

From the Bible, John 1:1 we have:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Advaitic big bang discussed above proposes:

In the beginning was the energy, and the energy was with Spirit(Brahman), and the energy was Spirit (Brahman).

In Hinduism, this Word is identified as the sound OM. This sound does not travel through the medium of air. It is even more subtle than the electromagnetic sound. When a person thinks without speaking, there is some subtle sound that only he can hear in the form of his own thoughts. This sound OM is even more subtle than the unuttered thoughts. But Yogis can hear this sound OM going on by itself in their meditation. This sound OM is not a figment of imagination of some Yogi. It is self existing like the cosmic microwave background noise which is electromagnetic noise. Om is the symbol of Hinduism the way Cross is the symbol of Christianity. In Hinduism when motionless Brahman begins to move, it vibrates. These first vibrations at the beginning of the universe are described as due to sound OM (Word.) All the other words in the universe are derived from this root Word, OM. In this connection there is a beautiful book “Garlands of letters” by Sir John Woodroffe, at following link.

https://www.google.co.in/search?q=garland+of+letters+john+woodroffe+pdf&rlz=1C1RLNS_enIN721IN721&oq=Garland+of+letters+J&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0.25424j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

“To me the holy ghost, god, life is behind the universe.”

Trinity is the word used in Christianity for describing the trio Father in heaven, the son and the Holy Ghost. In Hinduism this trinity is Brahman, incarnation of God and Mother Durga. In Muslim religion only Allah. In Judaism only Zehova. In Buddhism Nirvana in Nothingness.

Hinduism accepts both, God with form like Rama, Krishna, Jesus as well as formless God like Brahman (Spirit), Father in heaven, Zehova, Allah. These are different names of same reality. It refutes the nothingness idea which Buddhists came up with by eliminitating Brahman from their theology.

Mother Durga in Hinduism is the Sakti (energy) of Siva (formless Brahman). Scientists call her Mother Nature which is made up of energy. Holy Ghost in the Christian trinity is this energy. Jesus performed all his miracles with the help of Holy Ghost. There is a mention of living waters in Bible which is a form of energy which is living like human thoughts or Word or OM. A centurian in Gospel tells Jesus, “Master, just say the word and my servant will be cured.” So this word has that energy.

Dear colleagues,

One of the many possible answers to your question is to mention giants Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein, Ervin Schrödinger, Robert Oppenheimer, and others who up to one hundred years ago already based they research and discoveries on knowledge covered in Bhagavad-Gita and Veda.

All of them faced problems in quantum mechanics and cosmology that are already discussed in ancient books. They explicitly mentioned those texts on many occasions.

Ancient Indian texts are already serving to science for at least one hundred years. It gradually revealed that they correctly describe cosmology and quantum mechanics, it means all that we know from the grand scale of the Universe down there to tiny particles. It goes even towards the Emptiness called in Indian context Brahman, which is described in physics as zero-point energy or vacuum energy.

Why are those old texts very important? They cover something what modern science still is still missing. The unknown (to us Western scientist) links between zero-point energy, consciousness, and us.

As a person educated in mathematics and physics, the one who went through quite a few near-death experiences, meditator, and practitioner of healing energetic exercises, I can say that ancient Indian texts prove the most precise description of all what came through my life.

It is evident that there is much more hidden behind the pure matter. Our observations of dark matter and dark energy tell us that we do not observe the whole picture of the Universe in the matter just using our common senses.

We must go further and that is the place where a possible unification and reconciliation of physics and metaphysics resides.

The universe is one. We , life, our society, are a part of the universe. The knowledge of humans was very mystical 10,000 years ago. So society had developed by trial and error (survival of the fittest). As thought developed, humans started to understand (predict outcomes of events) patterns. All the resources of planet Earth existed when humans lived in family groups over 100,000 years ago. The difference between then and now is human knowledge (ability to predict) has increased.

Along the way science started to develop which turned to standard knowledge into repeatable and human caused outcomes. So whatever in our universe was mysticism (prediction uncertain) has slowly been replaced by creativity.

What remains is religion. But religion has its methods also. Here the items being studied are how to survive for longer periods of time. This involves establishing "morals" (codes of behavior). Then these codes in various groups compete. (The ancients talked of the Gods of different groups were competing. Just so.)

So if we are to survive ever longer, we need to understand more of the universe. Some of the outlier question involve consciousness, free will, etc. A scientific approach to problem solving involves first definition. Consciousness, free will, etc. lack definitions that allow measurement and calculation. So definitions are needed and should be the focus for such investigations.

But trial and error of religion and the mystical is still a recognized method of problem solving. So compare moralities and survival of groups obeying (NOT words but actions) . So how has the various concepts you mentioned helped the group survive? Have these groups lost the contest to survive?

World Health Organisation has recognized ancient AYUSH system (and its parts- Ayurveda and Yoga) as science. World is celebrating International Yoga Day. It is funny to see scientific scholars of 21st sanctuary still questioning the scientific basis of Ayurveda and Yoga.

Ancient wisdom like Yoga, Ayurveda and the like are proven scientific sources of knowledge as they are based on time-tested theories proven by observation, trial and error and experimentation. Number of facts narrated in these ancient texts are scientifically proven/validated now-a-days. We have several published evidences in reputed Journals in this regard. Based on this traditional knowledge several scientific advancements are being made.

Though available tools/techniques/few school of thoughts are not compatible to understand and prove some of these ancient hypothesis/theories. Different school of thoughts should come and work together to fill this gap in knowledge and explore these ancient facts for future benefit of mankind.

Dear Rohit Sharma,

Could you provide links to journals and other resources in English about AYUSH system? Are you paper will be very helpful. Thank you.

All these classical texts are scientific and time tested. Even what we are seeing in present time, many among them are result of advancment of theories and disease managment mentioned in these classical text for example Acharya Susruta, author of Susruta-Samhita is globally accepted as father of surgery and many operative procedures practiced today are adopted from Susruta Samhita. Further, till today many surgical procedures mentioned in these classical text are best available management in many diseases like Kshar-Sutra application in Fistula-in-Ano and piles.

Shobhit Kumar

Much more broadly, the behavior of the groups following a set of rules indicates its survivability. The length of time and the vicissitudes the society overcomes speaks to us about rules/morals we should follow.

If we come to the original question of this thread, it is highly interesting and amazing (if we take into account the pride of contemporary science) that as early as the 4th millennium B.C. in Mahabharata we find texts devoted to the positions of trans-Saturnian planets that were scientifically discovered only between 1781 (Uranus) and 1930 (Pluto). Try this link for more in-depth information: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-Sanskrit-name-for-Neptune-Uranus-and-Pluto. How was this possible (if the data are true, please check) if not through some sort of perception, of which our present civilization is ignorant and that can stand as a sort of science, i.e. the possibility of acquiring knowledge that exceeds capabilities of our senses.