Dear Chinmay, My criticism of Vedic Mathematics is, whatever it is, it has nothing to do with the Vedas, and the sutras and upasutras included in it, appear to have entirely been the concoctions of a 20th century Shankaracharya. His claim that they are contained in an appendix of the Atharva Veda is now recognized as fraudulent, because they are nowhere to be found in any edition of the Atharva Veda. When asked, the Shankacharya appears to have claimed that they were found only in his special personal edition of the Atharva Veda, which nobody has seen. Moreover, the sutras and upasutras are written in a cryptic allegorical form, and therefore can have multiple interpretations, none of which have to have anything to do with mathematics.
For example, one sutra is just a phrase containing two words "Ekadhikena Purvena". Literally, it only means one more than the previous one. However, the Shankaracharya interprets this to mean a method of decimal expansion of certain types of fractions, namely 1/19, 1/29, 1/39 and so on. Please read the noted Astrophysicist Jayant Narlikar's book "The Scientific Edge - The Indian Scientist from Vedic to Modern Times", to find out more about this. Regarding Ayurveda and "Vedic" Astrology, I will write separately. I have to go now. Cheers, Santosh --- Bhandare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Santosh: > > Vedic math to the best of my knowledge is a set of > some 16 sutras or formulae which are basically some > qucik ways of solving algebraic problems and maybe a > few related to conics...why are you against teaching > them in school? are you opposed to it being called > vedic or is there some other reason? > of course one must not claim that these sutras > contain > all that is to know about algebra but simply present > them in the right perspective > > as regards ayurveda, proponents argue that the > treatment is usually tailored for the individual not > for the disease..this makes more sense to me because > the human body is indeed too complex to be treated > simply as a sum of parts... > > if you mean to say that ayurveda is not science > because it doesnt confirm to the standards of double > binded placebo controlled trial than you are correct > but is it fair to apply this test to ayurveda > especially when the treatment is not uniform? isnt > that an assumption made in these clinical trials? > > as regards astrology i am as sceptical as you are > but > are you opposed to the idea that we ned to study it > only maybe to conclusively debunk it? wouldnt it be > against the scientific temperament to simply reject > it > outright? > Regards > > Bhandare >
